1. - Philippine Human Rights Information Center

Transcription

i
ii
From Four Nodes of History:
The Human Rights Challenge
in the Philippine Security Sector
Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights)
An institution of the Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA)
With the support of the United Nations Development Programme - Philippines
and the Commission on Human Rights
2013
iii
From Four Nodes of History:
The Human Rights Challenge in the Philippine Security Sector
Technical Editor: JM Villero
An institution of the Philippine Alliance of Human Rights
Advocates (PAHRA)
With the support of the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) - Philippines
and the Commission on Human Rights (CHR)
2013
Note: Except when otherwise indicated, the images used in this
publication are from the public domain.
iv
Preface
I
t is with much happiness that I extend my congratulations to
our partners, the United Nations Development Programme and
the Philippine Human Rights Information Center, for the successful launch of this study (“From Four Nodes of History: The
Human Rights Challenge in the Philippine Security Sector”). This
comprehensive material, detailing the local and world historical
landscape that shaped the relationship between human rights
and the Philippine military establishment, is truly an enlightening
educational material for all those interested in gaining a better understanding on and a proper perspective in evaluating the human
rights challenge in the military.
This project stemmed from the realization that history may be a
valuable repository of information to determine how best to understand and address the military’s modern-day human rights challenge. History may shed light on why, despite the constitutionallyenshrined mandate to protect the people, personnel of the armed
forces remain besieged with accusations of human rights violations
that run contrary to their sworn duty.
We hope that with this humble contribution, the Philippine military
will be inspired to continue efforts to overcome its human rights
challenge by taking a hard look at its history and reconciling with
this painful past for a future where human rights is a soldier’s way
of life. The Commission on Human Rights maintains its staunch belief in the Philippine military’s capacity to fully incorporate human
rights in its organization, both at the policy and operational levels.
LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES
Chairperson
Commission on Human Rights
v
Foreword
F
ollowing the dark years of colonialism, war and dictatorship, the Philippines has made great progress in building a
solid infrastructure of human rights. Formal institutions,
laws, and processes have been put firmly in place to protect the
individual freedoms as outlined by the 1948 Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. Now, the challenge for the Philippines is to nurture a culture of human rights, wherein duty-bearers respecting
and protecting the rights of claimholders is realized and felt by all
citizens as a natural way of life.
I cannot emphasize enough how important human rights education is in nurturing this culture. It will help people deepen their
appreciation of and sensitivity to human rights. Moreover, it plays
an essential role in promoting peace; in providing people with a
common understanding and in applying this understanding to address their differences; and at the same time, in respecting cultural
diversity. It should therefore be seen as a vital prerequisite to conflict resolution, not just for the leaders of the opposing sides but
for those who are tasked to keep the peace and order as well.
It is in this respect that the study, “From Four Nodes of History:
The Human Rights Challenge in the Philippine Security Sector,” is
a timely and relevant publication for the country. The military is
currently engaged in a number of longstanding conflicts, like in the
case of the Moro struggle in Southern Mindanao that has taken
many lives and displaced countless families for over 100 years. If
these conflicts are to be resolved, the military will need to become
vi
a force to build trust amongst the people and protect their human
rights, providing a safe and secure environment in which peace can
be achieved and sustained.
This publication is a part of our project, “Nurturing a Culture of Human
Rights in the Philippines”, which is jointly carried out with the Commission on Human Rights, the Philippine Human Rights Information
Center, and the other civil society organizations. A central thrust of the
project is to build the capacities of marginalized people to claim their
rights as well as duty-bearers to effectively meet their obligations. It is
needless to say that building capacity is not only about training people
on how best to perform their function but also engaging them with
the institutions and communities to which they belong or with which
they interact; realizing their role which they are to play; and certainly,
owning their mandate which they are to fulfill.
This book provides a concise guide to the history of the Philippine
military, which I believe can help sharpen soldiers’ perspective of
their mandate as the protector of the Filipino people and the defenders of their human rights.
TOSHIHIRO TANAKA
Country Director
United Nations Development Programme-Philippines
Introduction
T
his BOOk deals with the history of the Philippines and the
Philippine security sectora. Specifically, it deals with the
human rights challenge in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) from a historical perspective, given its contemporary constitutional mandate as the “protector of the people”. 1
The discussion extends as far back as the 16th century, when
Spanish conquistadores landed in the Philippine Islands, and
ends on December 10, 1948, when after 5,000 years of civilization, nations banded together and agreed that all women
and men are born with certain inalienable rights which have to
be protected by the State and its instrumentalities.
This commitment came in the form of a customary law known
as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). This instrument provides a set of minimum standards on how States
are to conduct themselves in relation to their citizens. This was
later supplemented by the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which were both
adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966.
Part of the history of the Philippine military is connected and intertwined with European history. Filipino soldiers provided the
bulk of the warm bodies of the Spanish Army in Southeast Asia
(and later by the United States). They were used by the Spanish
Army in the invasion of Formosa, Cambodia, Vietnam, Brunei and
present-day Indonesia. They were also used as garrison troops
in the cruel concentration camps in the Marianas and Caroline
Islands where libertarians, Masons and high profile oppositionists to the Monarchy and clerical tyranny were sentenced to exile. During World War I, the American colonial administration
prepared a full division of Filipino soldiers to fight in Europe, although this was overtaken by the armistice.
From a world historical perspective, this was a period when the
“Doctrine of Discovery” defined western foreign policy.
The Doctrine of Discovery stems from three major Papal Bulls
issued during Christianity’s Dark Ages. Despite its inhuman and
barbarous origins, this doctrine remains valid in US Supreme
Court jurisprudence (and is cited as part of the Laws of Nations
or International Law). It is used by the governments of the
United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and other white
colonies to deprive indigenous peoples of their claims over
their ancestral domains. The gist of the Doctrine of Discovery is
contained in the Papal Bull Dum Diversas which gave European
Christian Kingdoms the
vii
[A]uthority, full and free permission to invade,
search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and
pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of
Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other
property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery.
It was during this period that the Philippine security sector was
created and utilized by foreign powers against its own people and
the non-Christian peoples of the world. It served as an armed
instrument to seize the lands of the colonized people, reconcentrate the populace in village and town settlements, and enslave
farmers under the encomienda system. Filipinos were also recruited as soldiers of Spanish military expeditionary units that invaded Formosa, Vietnam, Cambodia, Brunei and the Spice Islands
under the Spanish flag.
Today, this dark period in history has been recognized and described by the United Nations Economic and Social Council’s
Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues as the period of the
“Doctrine of Discovery” which, it concludes, was the foundation of the violation of human rights. It is a doctrine that
viii
has been institutionalized in law and policy, on national and international levels, and lies at the root of
violations of indigenous peoples human rights, both
individual and collective. This has resulted in state
claims to and the mass appropriation of lands, territories and resources of indigenous peoples. Both
the Doctrine of Discovery and a holistic structure
that we term the Framework of Dominance have
resulted in centuries of virtually unlimited resource
extraction from the traditional territories of indigenous peoples. This, in turn has resulted in the dispossession and impoverishment of indigenous peoples, and the host of problems that they face today
on a daily basis.2
On September 13, 2007, the United Nations adopted the UN
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples during the
62nd Session of the UN General Assembly, with a majority vote
of 143. Four members voted against the Declaration (Australia,
Canada, New Zealand and the United States).3
But there is another part of Philippine military history that is
associated with the country’s long process of struggle for nationhood and independence.
This complex past of the Philippine military gives it both an
anti-Filipino and colonial character, as well as a patriotic and
revolutionary character.
These traditions generally fall into four categories which this
paper has characterized and presented as legacies. They are
the Spanish Legacy, the Moro Legacy, the Katipunan Legacy
and the American Legacy.
This paper traces the development of human rights which became the cornerstone of libertarian revolutions that included
the American Revolution for Independence, the French Revolution, the Latin American Revolutions, the revolutions and upheavals of 1848, the Spanish Glorious Revolution of 1868, and
finally, the Philippine Revolution of 1896.
Because it primarily deals with Philippine history and the role
the Philippine military played, the origins of many current socio-economic-political-cultural and military problems are also
covered.
Finally it must be pointed out that there is a big difference between education and training in the traditional military environment. The rank and file of a military organization are trained
but not educated. This makes the issue of human rights problematic in any army.
This problem is best explained by Robert T. Kiyosaki,4 a fighter
plane pilot during the Vietnam War. In his book, Unfair Advantage, Kiyosaki explains why he was a well-trained soldier, but
not a well-educated one:
I was trained to fly the helicopter gunship. I had no
education as to why we were at war in Vietnam. I did
not have any geo-political-economic education.
...
I did not know we were fighting for oil and control
over the resources of Vietnam and the rest of Southeast Asia. Sadly, I see the same thing going on in
Iraq and Afghanistan today.
...
All I was trained to do was fly, shoot and follow orders. Press the right button, and people died. Press
the wrong button, and I died.
ix
It is hoped that this paper will serve as a valuable educational
material in appreciating the human rights challenge in the Philippine security sector (the Armed Forces of the Philippines and
the Philippine National Police) from a historical perspective.
notes
1
An armed entity falls under the category of the Philippine military if
it was organized from any of the indigenous peoples of the Philippine
Islands for military employment on a national or much bigger area. It
maybe an independent entity (i.e., Moro Army, Katipunan/revolutionary)
or a part of a bigger army (i.e., under the Spanish Army or U.S. Army).
2
Tonya Gonnella Frichner, UN Special Rapporteur. Impact on Indigenous
People of the International Legal Construct known as the Doctrine of
Discovery, which has served as the Foundation of the Violation of their
Human Rights. Ninth Session, Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
United Nations Economic and Social Council. (New York 19-30 April 2010)
3
UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. United Nations Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
4
Robert T. Kiyosaki, Unfair Advantage: The Power of Financial Education.
Plata Publishing. 2011
DR. NYMIA PIMENTEL-SIMBULAN
Executive Director
x
Table of Contents
Preface
. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................
v
Foreword . ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. vi
Introduction.. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... vii
The Spanish Legacy...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
The Moro Legacy ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11
The Katipunan Legacy.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 23
The American Legacy................................................................................................................................................................................................... 41
xi
xii
I.
The Spanish Legacy
1
From Four Nodes of History: The Human Rights Challenge in the Philippine Security Sector
1.
What is the relevance and coverage
of the Spanish legacy in the study of
human rights?
a) It was a period when there was no human rights
to speak of. During this period, the Philippine military was not a protector of the people and did not
adhere to human rights. HR violations were systemic.
b) It covers the major developments, doctrines, experiences and lessons relevant to human rights
that occurred during the Spanish empire (from
1521 to 1898), when the Philippine military became an apparatus of the Spanish colonial empire
and served to put doctrines of colonization into
police and military actions.
2.
What was the situation in the
archipelago prior to the coming of
Spanish conquistadores?
Bizarre homage to the conqueror: A shrine of what is [erroneously] believed to be remnants
of Magellan’s cross can be found in the city of Cebu.
2
The local islanders and the rest of Southeast Asia came from
a general racial stock and enjoyed the great civilizations of
Asia.
The Spanish Legacy
Prior to the coming of Spain, the islanders belonged to tribes
that were independent of each other. The local inhabitants
could read and write and they lived in abundance and prosperity. The fertile lands, virgin forests teeming with flora and
fauna and aquatic resources ensured abundance to this very
small population. This was aside from the benefits in trade
with India, China, Indo-China, Japan, Brunei, Malaysia, and
Indonesia and with the Arab traders. The basic relationship
of the islanders with these civilizations was trade partnership
and cultural interaction, punctuated by intermarriages and
alliances between the migrants and the islanders.
They benefited from the Hindu-Buddhist civilization at a time
when India enjoyed dominance in world trade with China,
Europe, Southeast Asia and North Africa, having been greatly
influenced by the Indian Majapahit and Sri Vijaya empires
when the coastal areas of the Philippines became trading
posts connecting the Spice Trade in lower (Maritime) Southeast Asia and China (see map on page 5).
The islanders also benefited from the advanced civilizations
of China and the Islamic empire during Islam’s Golden Age.
These civilizations that positively affected the islanders were
more advanced than Spain and preceded the latter by more
than 500 years. For thousands of years, Spain had been con-
quered and subjugated by a series of conquering hordes that
included Romans, Germanic tribes and Islamic caliphates.
The last conquerors were the Islamic multi-national armies
that ruled Spain through caliphates for 700 years.
3.
this?
Why did Spain embark on world
conquest? How did it accomplish
During the Dark Ages of Christianity, when popes were corrupt,
decadent and tyrannical, Spain and the other kingdoms of Europe became greatly influenced by the papacy and its policies.
On June 18, 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued the infamous papal
bull, Dum Diversas, granting upon European Christian Kingdoms, starting with Portugal, “full and free power” to seek,
invade, and subjugate those that it called the “enemies of
Christ.” The edict further instructed the European kingdoms
to lead these enemies of Christ “in perpetual servitude.”
Other papal bulls, Romanus Pontifex (issued on January 8,
1455 by Pope Nicolas V) and Inter Caetera (issued on May
4, 1493 by Pope Alexander VI), elaborated on this policy of
world conquest and perpetual enslavement in the name of
God. These papal bulls, which became the core of international European laws (at that time called the Laws of Nations)
3
continue to be valid, with their fruits recognized by US jurisprudence as the Doctrine of Discovery, which some nations
(e.g., Canada, Great Britain, Australia) used to settle issues
on ancestral lands.
Dum Diversas was issued in the belief that the Christian Kingdoms of Europe were the new “chosen people of God,” and the
new promised land was the non-Christian world. Accordingly,
the new chosen people of God had to follow a new covenant:
The Spanish Empire
at its mightiest
Source: Wikimedia commons
4
The Spanish Legacy
The Majapahit Empire
Source: Wikimedia commons
5
that the entire non-Christian world were to be conquered and
enslaved in perpetuity and all the spoils of war and the fruits of
this enslavement were to be enjoyed by them as their reward
from God.
The Spanish Crown issued El Requerimiento 1513 summarizing this papal dogma which was to be read to inhabitants before their conquest.
Following the directives of Dum Diversas, Spain conquered
the gentle civilized peoples of the Americas (North, Central and South America) and instituted the slave system
called the Encomienda, in which the American Natives
were made to work in Spanish plantations and mine fields.
In just a span of 50 years, 80 percent of the Native American population died from atrocities and fatal diseases that
were often contracted when women were raped by conquistadores and returned to cramped labor camps. Faced
with acute labor shortage, Spain started importing slaves
from Africa through the Asiento system. Other European
powers, following Portugal and Spain’s examples, also
started importing African slaves.
Starting from 1492, the Spain built an empire through conquests, royal inter-marriages and royal inheritance.
6
4.
What were the crimes against
humanity that occurred in the
Philippines during the Spanish period?
Spanish colonizers were able to conquer Luzon and the Visayas but failed to subjugate Mindanao. In areas where they
succeeded, the Spaniards imposed a caste system categorizing
the inhabitants as negritoes, Indios, Tomatras (mixed NegritoIndio-Mestizo blood), Mestizo de Sangley and Mestizo de Español, while the unconquered Muslims were called Moros.
Spain enforced the same colonial policies it used in Central
and South America, with one central common colonial administrator, the Viceroy of Mexico. Under El Requerimiento
1513, the islanders had to convert to the Catholic faith or suffer the consequences: be killed or enslaved.
Foremost of these policies was the brutal slave system called
the encomienda system. In the first 30 years of Spanish occupation in the Philippines, about 35% of the population perished,
presumably from diseases and the atrocities committed. One
estimate puts the toll on human life at more than 50% during
the 17th century, before the Philippine population started to
pick up after the removal of the encomienda system.
The Spanish Legacy
Lapu-Lapu, the first native of the
archipelago to stand up against
Spanish colonization.
This policy was later abandoned after more than 200 years
when it was realized that the encomienda system was unprofitable because it promoted genocide. The encomienda was
supplanted with the hacienda system, which was also marked
with cruelty and injustice.
Another policy of forced labor to facilitate the building of
roads, buildings, bridges and churches was the Polo y Servicio. It required all male islanders between 15 to 60 years old
to work without pay in slave labor camps every year. Many islanders were uprooted from their homes to work in far away
places, causing famines in their home towns.
Spanish authorities also implemented the Bandala system,
which decreed that farmers who produced food crops sell all
their surplus food to Spanish authorities. The latter bought
these on credit which were to be counted as tax credits when
the farmers paid for their taxes.
Spanish authorities also imposed agricultural monopolies in
different regions. In Northern Luzon for example, all farmers
were required to plant only one crop – tobacco – and to sell
them only to authorized Spanish agents who dictated the
price. Because this policy was mandatory and carried stiff
penalties, food shortages occurred.
7
All household heads were also required the annual cedula
(residence tax) which was based on a fixed rate.
Spanish friars became the main hacienderos in many agricultural lands. In Southern Tagalog areas, for example, the friars
owned as much as 45 percent of the best agricultural lands.
They were known to grab lands of dying Filipinos who were
administered the last sacraments, claiming that they had donated their land holdings to the church as their last will and
testament. They also usurped the lands owned by the Spanish Crown and resisted audits. In these friar lands even the
fish from rivers and products of forests were claimed as part
of Church property; friars banned farmers from getting food
or demanded a share from those who fished, hunted or took
wood products.
5.
What was the role of the Philippine
military during the Spanish era?
The Spanish conquistadores recruited islanders to comprise
the majority of soldiers in the Spanish Army, the Guardia Civil
and the village police/militia (Bantayanes).
The soldiers were used to act as a coercive force to implement the slave encomienda system, forced labor (Polo y
Servicio), and the Bandala system, and to act as escorts for
8
tribute and tax collection, besides maintaining the Spanish
brand of peace and order. They were also used as expeditionary forces to invade the peoples of the region, as in the
case of Formosa, Cambodia, Vietnam, Brunei and Borneo,
or to fight Spanish defensive wars against the Netherlands
and Britain.
As such, for more than 300 years, the Philippine military under the Spanish regime committed systemic human rights violations. Instead of protecting the Filipino people, they were
the protectors of the Spanish authorities and friars.
6.
What does the Spanish legacy teach
us about human rights and human
rights violations?
 
Human rights violations are crimes committed by the State or
its instrumentalities that are either systemic or non-systemic
in nature. 
 
Human rights violations are deemed systemic  if such violations emanate from a state (a) that was installed  without the
consent of the people through a  social contract called the
constitution and the laws that emanate from it,   (b) whose
highest officials and offices are  not  elected or  approved  re-
The Spanish Legacy
spectively through  elections and referendums by the people
they govern and (c)  whose decrees, laws, policies and regulations  do not serve the  interest of or are detrimental to  the
public good  or humanity in general. Acts such as summary
execution, torture, burning of houses, rape,
poisoning of wells and rivers, revenge killing
of civilians or prisoners, stealing for food, etc.,
in furtherance of state policies and laws fall
within this ambit.
 
Criminal acts of the same nature (i.e., summary executions, torture, burning of houses,
etc.) committed by individuals, groups, factions  through the usurpation of their office
or government positions   in defiance of  very
clear constitutional  provisions, state policies,
laws,  penal codes, or code of conduct  which
are meant to embarrass,  subvert, change
or overthrow a  duly constituted democratic
government and its leaders  or bring back a
past dictatorial, autocratic or fascist system
of government  or simply to achieve personal
material gain or  unconstitutional authority
are called non-systemic human rights violations. 
 
During the period of the Spanish empire and its colonial rule in
the Philippine islands, human rights violations were systemic.
The papal bulls and the contents of El Requerimiento 1513
9
Everything was justified so long as the victims were nonChristians. It is estimated that the implementation of these
laws caused the death of 80 percent of the populations of
central, South and North America.
Filipino revolutionary soldiers outside Manila, ca. 1899.
(c) Public domain
and the Torah passages in the Old Testament on warfare explicitly ordered the European Christian kingdoms to violate
the human rights of all non-Christians in the whole world.
These laws explicitly commanded the multinational Spanish
Armies to carry out (a) the seizure of all non-Christian lands,
(b) confiscation of all their properties (c) perpetual enslavement of non-Christians (d) genocide, sparing only young virgin girls (Torah), (e) piracy (legalized through an authorization
that became known as the Letter of Marque or privateering)
(e) mass kidnapping (f) slavery and slave trade, and (g) persecution and punishment of all persons deemed as heretics,
witches or demons (these included Jews, Muslims, Free Masons and scientists pursuing researches deemed demonic,
such as the study of anatomy).
10
In the Philippines, acts that made human rights violations systemic included the seizure of all Philippine lands conquered
in the name of the Spanish Crown, the implementation of
the slave system called the encomienda system, the annual
40-day forced labor on all males aged 15 to 60 called Polo y
Servicio, the Bandala system that forced inhabitants to sell
agricultural food produce on credit, the hacienda system, the
agricultural monopoly laws (forced planting of tobacco, sugar
or abaca as exclusive crops on certain regions), the ban on
freedom of speech, the ban on the freedom of association
and expression, and censorship, among others.
All these acts were part of the laws of the land by a government that was not installed by popular will or with the consent of the governed through a constitution, elections and
referendums, and whose acts were not for the public good or
in the interest of the people.
These were the laws that Filipino soldiers in the Spanish army
implemented.
II.
The moro Legacy
11
T
he Moro legacy encompasses the period of struggle against Spanish and American colonialism. It is
a period of time when the Philippine military also
acquired a Moro tradition, aside from the Spanish, revolutionary (i.e., Philippine Revolution of 1896, and the
Philippine-American War) and the American military traditions.
1.
How did Islam reach the Philippine
Islands?
Islamic penetration into Maritime Southeast Asia emerged
during Islam’s Golden Age (750 CE - c. 1257 CE). During this
period, Muslims of different nationalities united and took
over many lands controlled by the Roman and Persian empires and placed them under the control of Muslim caliphates (ie., Umayyad and Ottoman empires). They were able
to take control of the international ports that Indian merchants had relied upon for centuries for dominance. Arab
traders were able to take control of the strategic Indian
port of Malabar in the Southwestern Coast of India. From
Malabar, Muslim traders and missionaries fanned out to
Maritime Southeast Asia that included the islands of what
is now the Philippines. They used the same trading routes
Indian traders used from Malabar.
12
Islam was able to take root in Malaysia and Indonesia during
the 12th century when the King of Kedah renounced his Hindu
religion and converted to Islam. Other Muslim conversions
followed, starting with the royal families in Malacca in 1267,
and Sumatra in 1267.
From here, Islam spread to Brunei and Sulu and mainland
Mindanao, converting the Indianized population to Islam. At
about 1500, when Brunei took over the Islamic leadership in
Maritime Southeast Asia, Muslim influence and conversions
had reached coastal areas in Luzon. Conversion to Islam was
peaceful and brought inhabitants prosperity, for at this point,
world trade using the “Silk Road” was controlled by Arab
Muslims.
2.
What exactly are Moros?
The term Moros, from the word Moors, was coined by the
people of the Iberian Peninsula to describe the Muslims who
conquered and subjugated them for over 700 years during
the ascendancy of the Umayyad Caliphate. (Moors were also
called “Saracens” by the papacies who were leading the holy
crusades.) The term Moors has no ethnological value1 because the Muslim armies that took and subjugated the Spaniards came from the Berber people of North Africa, Black Afri-
The Moro Legacy
cans and Arabs. The
Moors easily took
former
territories
of the Roman and
Persian empires because in most cases
the populace accepted them.
When Spanish conquistadores
came
to Manila, they encountered
many
people who had embraced the Islamic
faith and called them
Moros. The “Moros”
in Manila that Spaniards encountered
were the dominant
group, with three
main kingdoms (Manila, Tondo and Namayan).
During the Moro Wars against Spanish domination, the word
“Moro” became a derogatory term used against Muslims
from Mindanao and Sulu. It was associated with piracy, pillage, slave raids and treachery because of the Moros’ ability
to effectively thwart Spanish military expeditions and answer
them with their own retaliatory attacks against main Spanish
settlements that included Manila, Central Luzon, Ilocos region, Bicol and the Visayan islands. The inhabitants of Luzon
and the Visayas who had become virtual Spanish slaves under
the encomiendero system began to fear and hate “Moros”
when they suffered from these Moro attacks. The Stockholm
syndrome/captive bonding (love of captors) generally penetrated the psychological make-up of subjugated Filipinos.
3.
What were the original “Moro Lands”
in the Philippine Islands?
Lands once occupied and influenced by Moros by virtue of
occupation, intermarriage, conversion to the Muslim faith
and the jurisdictional scope of tribute can rightly be called
the original Moro Lands.
Most of these lands were peopled from countries of Maritime
Southeast Asia. They have a common racial ancestry ethnically termed as Austronesian for the same language family,
but differentiated by Europeans according to ownership by
conquest (i.e., Malays for Britain, Indo-Chinese by the French,
Indios by the Spaniards and Indonesians by the Dutch). They
13
also have a common DNA relationship in their blood based
on contemporary genetic studies, with only 3 percent having
European DNA markers.
Austronesians inhabited Southern Thailand, Singapore, east
Sumatra, coastal Borneo, Brunei, coastal Sarawak and Sabah.
They converted to Hindu Buddhism (during the Sri Vijaya and
the Majapahit empires when Indians controlled world trade)
and later, during the Golden Age of Islam (when Muslims
dominated world trade because they controlled most international ports from North Africa to Malabar, India), converted to Islam. This was prior to the coming of Spanish conquistadores.
Manila, parts of Central Luzon and Southern Tagalog were
once governed by three trading kingdoms: the Kingdom of
Tondo, the Sultanate of Maynila and the Sultanate of Namayan. These were former Hindu-Buddhist trade settlements
that served as trading outposts with relatively small populations that eventually converted to Islam.
A large part of the Visayas were also tributaries (e.g., the domain of Lapu-Lapu, a Muslim Datu of Tausug origin) undergoing the same transformation from their former Hindu-Buddhist origins (e.g., Mindoro).
14
But the heart of Moroland was the Mindanao Islands that included Palawan and the Sulu archipelago. The web that connected all of these Moro lands was thalassocracy, a society based on
seafaring activities, primarily sea trade, which had been established by the earlier Hindu civilization in the whole region.
4.
What is the “Stockholm syndrome”
and “capture bonding”? How does
this relate to the history of the Christian
and Moro Filipinos?
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Stockholm syndrome is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and positive feelings towards their
captors, to the point of defending them.2
Evolutionary psychologists believe that the Stockholm syndrome is an expression of the phenomenon of captive bonding, a psychological survival trait developed by humans in its
evolution in the face of war. Such phenomenon has also been
demonstrated in the domestication of animals, such as dogs.
When Spanish conquistadores enslaved the greater part
of Luzon and the Visayas, the populace underwent captive
bonding and began to identify with their Spanish masters and
The Moro Legacy
Carnage at the crater of Bud Dajo: In March 1911, American troops massacred more than 1,000 Moros, including women and children at Bud Dajo, Jolo.
(c) Public domain
15
to see the conflict between their captors (the Spaniards) and
the “Moros” as a protective act of their captors. They then
became willing to help defend the Spaniards.
6.
Who was Sultan Kudarat and how did
he bring peace to the Moro areas of
Sulu and Mindanao? What was his legacy
to the traditions of the Philippine military?
The Muslim resistance found an able leader in Sultan Kudarat
(Qudratullah Katchil Sultan, 1619-1671). Kudarat grew up at
a time when Moro wars were being waged in Luzon and the
Visayas. He became the Sultan of Maguindanao in 1619.
Prior to the ascendancy of Sultan Kudarat, the Maguindanao Sultanate had already been launching retaliatory attacks
against Spanish strongholds.
Battle-ready: Warriors from Sulu in combat stance.
(c) Public domain
5.
What were the Moro Wars?
The Moro Wars were basically wars to defend the Moro lands
from the invasion of foreign powers, and can generally be divided into two historical periods: the Spanish colonial period
(1521-1898) and the American colonial period (1898-1946).
16
Sultan Kudarat started his reign by trying to find a peaceful
settlement with Spanish forces. He saw an opportunity for
peace in the light of the war for colonial possessions between
the Dutch and British on one hand, and the Spanish and Portuguese on the other hand. Banking on this situation, he first
secured a peace treaty with the Dutch (who were attacking
and displacing Portugal for control of Indonesia) and then negotiated an assurance with the Spaniards.
But when Spanish authorities confiscated the gold of Maguindanao traders in Manila, Sultan Kudarat went on the warpath.
The Moro Legacy
His early efforts in uniting the Muslims into a cohesive force
against the Spaniards started in Maguindanao, where he first
settled factional disputes in the Pulangi area. As a result, he
was able to consolidate his hold on the lands controlled by
the Sultanate that included Maguindanao, the coastal areas of present-day Sultan Kudarat, parts of South Cotabato,
Saranggani, parts of Lanao, Davao del Sur, Oriental, and the
eastern part of Zamboanga.
Sultan Kudarat had vision and exceptional skills in diplomacy and organization which he used to strengthen the
resistance. These were skills that had to take into consideration existing sultan and datu rivalries. He was able
to get the trust and respect among the major resistance
leaders that emerged in the Moro struggle. His resistance
army was composed of independent armed forces raised
and led by clan leaders.
In 1632 Kudarat married the daughter of Sultan Mawallil Wasit of Sulu (Rajah Bongsu, 1600-1640). This forged a strong
bond between the Sultanate of Maguindanao and the powerful Sultanate of Sulu.
Wasit, a royal member of the Sultanate of Brunei, became
the de facto Sultan of Sulu because of his marriage to the
daughter of the former Sulu Sultan. Wasit was himself an
able commander with
a string of military victories. He had brought
with him a staff led by the
able inter-datu organizer
Acheh, who became his
right-hand man. This alliance with Sultan Kudarat
produced an army with a
contingent of 1,500 warriors that concentrated
their operations against
Spanish forces in Dapitan,
Leyte and Bohol.
Among Wasit’s previous
military achievements as
Sultan of Sulu were the
following:
• In 1627, Wasit led 2,000
Tausug warriors
which
attacked and completely destroyed Spanish ship
yards in Camarines Sur, crippling their ability to
17
produce ships for a time. They also were able to
cart a large cache of cannons, muskets and ammunition in this raid and take hundreds of prisoners which they sold as slaves.
• In 1629, he sent his right hand man, Datu Acheh
(a Datu from Borneo), to conduct a series of raids
in Spanish settlements in Camarines, Samar, Leyte
and Bohol.
• After repelling a major attack from Spanish forces led by Lorenzo de Olaso on Jolo on March 17,
1630, Wasit retaliated with an expeditionary force
the following year and attacked and sacked Leyte,
the location of the Spanish government for the Visayas.
In his own sultanate, Sultan Kudarat tapped at least two of his
brothers to be his commanders. One of them, Datu Tagal, was
the sultanate’s commander of operations in the Visayas. One
of Tagal’s exploits was carrying out an eight-month military
expedition in the Visayas. He was however killed, together
with his brother and 300 Maguindanao warriors, when their
small contingent was intercepted by a Spanish fleet. They
were on their way home after a victorious military campaign
some time in the latter half of the 1630s.
18
Sultan Kudarat holds the distinction of uniting the datus of
Lake Lanao against the Spanish forces that were initially able
to make inroads in the Lanao Lake area. Muslim chieftains,
in order to avoid a war, agreed to pay tributes and allow the
Jesuits to do missionary work in the area.
The crippling effects of the unified Moro wars under Sultan
Kudarat, together with external developments that threatened Spain, led Spanish forces to abandon Mindanao and the
Sulu archipelago from 1663-1718.
Sultan Kudarat demonstrated total devotion in marshalling
Moro warriors in protecting the Moro lands from foreign control. He gave the Philippine military one of the finest traditions in protecting the people.
After Sultan Kudarat, no successor with the caliber of his vision that looked beyond Sultanate interests emerged in the
struggle against Spanish colonialism.
Today, Sultan Kudarat is recognized as a hero of the Filipino
people. He personifies the finest Moro tradition in the Philippine military. But a lot of Filipinos and soldiers do not know
who he is and what he stands for.
The Moro Legacy
The Sultan of Sulu arrives for the signing of the Bates Agreement.
(c) Public domain
7.
Why is it necessary to change the way
most Filipinos think about “Moros”?
There is a need for Christian Filipinos, including Filipino soldiers, to change their way of thinking towards the “Moros”
(and vice versa) to facilitate the country’s journey to nationhood. Peace would be the by-product of this recognition and
the correction of centuries of religious, social and economic
injustices inflicted on the Moros.
With the prevailing negative biases and prejudices bordering on hatred against “Moros”, the political leadership of the
state and its armed instrument are likely to commit human
rights violations in state policy and military operations against
the “Moro” people. It was un-Filipino and anti-Muslim, for instance, for a past president to be involved in a lechon (roast
pig) feast with soldiers inside the mosque of a conquered
Muslim camp.
Filipinos, including the Muslims of Mindanao, share a common cultural and economic history, ethnology and DNA;
moreover, they have more in common with the rest of Southeast Asia than with the Spaniards and the Americans who
were responsible for the crimes against humanity and the
cause of the great divide between Christians and Muslims in
the Philippines.
19
8.
What was the Bates Treaty? How did
it affect the efforts for the unification
of the Filipino people towards nationhood
and independence?
The Bates Treaty was a desperate but successful US initiative
aimed at preventing the Moros from joining the revolutionary
forces in Luzon and the Visayas. Such an alliance would have
opened a new fighting front in the Sulu and Mindanao, the
effects of which the US would not have been able to handle.
The revolutionary forces had liberated and established a revolutionary government in Zamboanga under General Vicente
Alvarez. Though it had been overthrown with a counterforce
supported by US Captain Pratt, the revolutionary remnants in
Zamboanga had retreated to Basilan, a vassal island of Sultan
Kiram of Sulu.
The American forces feared the strategic implications posed
by General Alvarez.
When the Spanish forces surrendered Zamboanga on May
18, 1899 (after burning the city to the ground), Alvarez was
proclaimed the head of the revolutionary government in
Zamboanga at a time when the Philippine-American War was
20
American treachery
I
n the Tausug version of the treaty,
no sovereignty issue was raised -only an American commitment of
“support, aid and protection of the Jolo
Island and Archipelago” as stated in Article
I of the treaty. This was treacherously
translated in English by the Americans
as “The sovereignty of the United States
over the whole Archipelago of Jolo
and its dependencies is declared and
acknowledged.” The treaty also gave
assurances that the US will not interfere
with the religious belief and practices
of Moros, the administrative control of
Muslim leaders, and their property rights.
This meant the US could not sell any of
their property.
The Moro Legacy
raging in Luzon and the Visayas. The US high command sent
a military expeditionary force to Zamboanga and Sulu, afraid
that Alvarez would negotiate with the Sultan of Sulu and the
other Sultanates of Mindanao, form an alliance and open a
new fighting front which the US forces would not be able to
counteract. (Had this alliance developed, US efforts to take
the Philippines would have been effectively frustrated and
the people of Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao could have won
their struggle for independence, thus finishing the historic
task that the Philippine Revolution of 1896 had attempted to
accomplish.)
To create a wedge, the US negotiated for a temporary peace
treaty in the form of the Kiram-Bates Treaty.
Sultan Kiram of Sulu was against the treaty and stubbornly
delayed the negotiations for several months. He did not attend the negotiations (though he sent his representatives)
and only appeared during the final signing of the treaty. Most
probably he was in contact with General Alvarez who was
also his trusted and appointed Datu for Zamboanga and Basilan. Alvarez was holed up in Basilan at that time.
The Americans responded to Kiram’s stubbornness by using the same scare tactics employed by US Admiral Perry
to force Japan to sign an unequal treaty. The United States
navy positioned their most modern battleships menacingly
and showed their devastating power during the negotiations
while at the same time promising allowances to the key leaders of the Sulu archipelago. The Bichara, the Muslim leading
council, capitulated, forcing Sultan Kiram to finally agree to
the treaty. The American negotiators put in sweeteners in the
treaty in the form of regular allowances to Muslim leaders.
After successfully breaking the backbone of the Philippine
revolutionary forces and “pacifying” most of Luzon and the
Visayas, the Bates Treaty outlived its usefulness. It was unilaterally abrogated on March 2, 1904. Gen. John Bates would
later admit:
The Treaty was made at a time when nearly all the
state volunteers had been sent home and other
troops had not arrived to take their places. It was a
critical time, as all the troops were needed in Luzon.
The Government could not afford to stir up trouble
with the Moros. The Treaty was made as a temporary expedient to avoid trouble. It has served its
purpose for three years, and there is now no reason
why the treaty, which was but a temporary measure at a critical time, should not be changed in accordance with the conditions.
21
The 52nd Company, Philippine Moro Scouts, ca. 1906.
(c) Public domain
9.
In what way is the so-called “Moro
problem” the same common
problem in the whole country?
It was during the Commonwealth period that the roots of the
present conflict in Mindanao were laid down.
The Commonwealth Government, under the guidance of
the United States, enacted laws that took away the lands of
Moros and indigenous peoples. This brought about the same
problem which Spain created in Luzon and the Visayas that
remains at the root of the current unrests and insurgencies.
On November 7, 1936, Commonwealth Act No. 141 (An Act
to Amend and Compile the Laws Relative to the Lands of the
22
Public Domain or the Public Land Act)
was enacted. All lands that had not
been titled during the Spanish colonial period were declared property
of the Commonwealth government
and by extension, the United States
of America. Even the lands in the
Philippine archipelago that Spain was
unable to conquer and control, such as the Moro lands and
lands of indigenous peoples, were declared properties of the
United States through this law. It will be recalled that Spain
included Mindanao (which it was never able to conquer at all)
when it sold the Philippines for US $ 20 million to the United
States in the Treaty of Paris. During the negotiations that led
to the Treaty, the only territory Spain actually held was the
small patch of land where Intramuros stood, which was already completely surrounded by the revolutionary army of
the First Philippine Republic. Ninety-nine percent of Luzon
and the Visayas had already been liberated.
The substance of this outright land grabbing affected the
great majority of Filipinos, especially settlers and ethnic minorities in Mindanao.
III.
The katipunan Legacy
23
1.
What is the coverage of the
Katipunan legacy? Why is it important
in the traditions of the Philippine military?
decisive factor in the victory of the revolution in 1898 against
the Spanish Colonial power. This, however, was short-lived,
with the destruction of the First Philippine Republic during the
Philippine-American War.
The Katipunan legacy pertains to the events, traditions and
lessons that emanate from the struggles of the Filipino people
to attain national consciousness, nationhood and independence. It was a conscious struggle for inalienable rights based
on the particularity of Philippine conditions.
2.
It is directly linked to the development of Libertarian ideas
(Liberalism), and the world revolution for inalienable rights
which engulfed Europe and the Americas in the 19th century,
the basis on which the concept and common standards of human rights developed.
The events that occurred during this period of history in the
Philippines cannot be comprehensively understood without
looking at the bigger picture of humankind’s struggle for inalienable rights.
The Philippine military redeemed itself during the 1896 Revolution. After 350 years of violating human rights, it became
the protector of the people when it crossed over to the side of
the Philippine Revolution, fought for its ideals and became a
24
The ideology of the Philippine
Revolution of 1896
a) What were the crimes against humanity
that led people of goodwill to challenge
the system and develop Liberalism as an
ideology?
Between the 15th and 20th century, Christian European kingdoms,
in collusion with the papacies, promoted endless wars and conquests, genocide, slavery, feudalism and religious tyranny.
The concept of inalienable rights of individuals emerged as
a reaction to the worldwide monumental crimes against humanity that monarchism and religious tyranny perpetrated.
It became a material force that challenged the Spanish and
other European empires during the 18th and 19th centuries.
The army, the armed apparatus of the state, was used as
the main instrument in these monumental violations of human rights in the name of God and the king.
The Katipunan Legacy
Crimes in the name of god
A
mong the crimes committed in the name of God
were the following:
• The eight Holy Crusades organized by the papacies carried
out pillage and genocide against
Muslims, Jews and various Christian denominations alike all over
Europe and the Near East.
• To ensure papal monopoly of
religious beliefs, education and
membership to only one Christian
organization, which was the Roman Catholic religion, Holy Inquisitions were carried out throughout
Europe. Confessional boxes were
used as instruments of intelligence
to pinpoint heretics and enemies of
monarchism and the papacy. Hunter teams composed of priests and
soldiers of the crown were orga-
gold mines, plantations and haciendas, turning their inhabitants
into slaves and tenants in lands
which they once owned. High
seas piracy, mass kidnapping, kidnapping for ransom, slavery and
slave trade and genocide became
legalized so long as the victims
were non-Christians. During this
period, Portugal, Spain, Britain,
France, Germany, Netherlands,
Denmark, Sweden, Russia and
the Vatican invaded and divided
North America, Islands in the
West Indies and the Carribean,
South America, Africa, Islands in
the Indian Ocean, Middle East,
the Indian Subcontinent, and the
Asia-Pacific among themselves. nized to ferret out heretics, witches,
demons and scientists among the
populace. These hunter teams had
the authority to search homes of
suspects and arrest them immediately and burn their homes on the
basis of discovered evidence. The
employment of torture to ferret out
confessions during interrogations
was decreed by popes in several
papal bulls. Special torture instruments and methods were developed
and employed by Inquisitors who
were priests.
• On the basis of Papal Bulls
starting with Dum Diversas which
became legally known as the
Laws of Nations and the Doctrine
of Discovery, European Christian Kingdoms carried out world
conquest and confiscated nonChristian lands. They established
• Up to the 18th century, nonChristians controlled world sea
trade (i.e., the Silk Road) with the
25
25
From Four
of History:
The The
Human
RightsRights
Challenge
in the Philippine
Security Sector
From
FourNodes
Strands
of History:
Human
Challenge
in the Philippine
Security Sector
merchants of Italy as conduits for
Europe. Their ships initially became
the main targets of Dum Diversas.
Portugal and Spain were able to
amass wealth quickly by interdicting ships laden with commodities
and wealth off the coast of North
Africa. As a result, they were able
to finance their ventures in building powerful navies for exploration and conquests. Britain and the
Netherlands followed this example,
waylaying Spanish treasure ships
during their wars of succession and
religious wars with each other.
26
26
• Genocide in the Americas.
The genocidal conquest and implementation of the encomienda
system, a brutal form of slavery,
caused the death of 80 percent
of the population of North, Central and South America in just a
span of 50 years. These deaths
were directly attributed to atrocities and European diseases which
were fatal to indigenous peoples
in the absence of biological immunity. Conquistadores raped and
infected indigenous women with
European diseases and returned
them to cramped slave camps
where they in turn contaminated
the overworked and malnourished
slaves. 35% of the population under Spanish control perished in
the first 30 years of Spanish occupation in Luzon and the Visayas,
census records show. • Racism and religious intolerance and discrimination became
rampant during this period. European colonizers debated whether
non-Christians had souls or were
sub-humans. Indigenous peoples
were often portrayed as savages
and cannibals. This was hypocritical, considering that during the
middle ages, many specialty medicinal stores that sold dried parts
of organs and medicinal powder
from crushed Egyptian mummies
for the “cure” of many human diseases were operating in Europe.
• The forced addiction of tens of
millions of Chinese by Britain. The
forced dumping of British opium
in the Chinese market was accomplished after British naval bombardment of China’s coastal cities. It
forced Chinese authorities to allow
entry of the destructive commodity,
targeting its 300 million population. These military actions known as the
two Opium Wars resulted in the annexation of Hong Kong and signing
of unequal treaties. This led to China’s “Century of Humiliation”. Being a non-Christian nation, China
was fair game for Dum Diversas. The Katipunan Legacy
Some of the Papal Bulls and decrees that curtailed freedom of thought, science and religion
The papacy issued papal bulls banning ideas that did not conform to Church dogma. These religious crimes became known
as heresy and earned severe punishments for those who espoused them in the realm of social-political thought, science and
contrary religions.
• In April 1215, Pope Innocent III decreed during the Fourth Lateran Council that anyone caught reading the Bible
would be stoned to death by the Church Militia.3 This was in reaction to protestants relying on the bible to seek the
truth that was contrary to papal pronouncements.
• Papal Bull Ad abolendam, issued by Pope Lucius III in 1184, which condemned heresy and prescribed a set of punishments against heretics.
• Papal Bull Vergentis in senium by Pope Innocent III (1199) which made heresy a crime tantamount to treason.
• Papal Bull Super speculam, issued by Pope Honorius III in 1219, banned the study of Civil Law and ordered Law
Schools in Paris, France closed.
• Papal Bull Impia judeorum perfidia, issued by Pope Innocent IV in 1244, which called for the burning of the Talmud
(the Jewish Bible).
• Papal Bull Ad extirpanda by Pope Innocent IV (1252) authorized the use of torture in the interrogation of heretics
and gave orders to execute relapsed heretics by burning them alive.
27
b) How did Libertarian ideas (Liberalism)
develop and become a material force
worldwide? How were they propagated?
The great debates in the coffee shops of Europe starting in
the 17th century led to the introduction of new socio-political
ideas that were considered heretical.
The most prominent of these venues was Café Procope where
Voltaire and Rousseau hanged out. But its real significance was
when the Liberals Diderot and d’Alembert, over coffee at Procope, decided to come out with the earthshaking book project,
the Encyclopédie.4
These two editors decided to make a collection of articles on
human knowledge, a heretical act in those days. They commissioned hundreds of the most progressive intellectuals
of Europe. When completed, the Encyclopedie had 28 volumes, with 71,818 articles and 3,129 illustrations. The first
17 volumes were published between 1751 and 1765. Denis
Diderot wrote that the purpose of the Encyclopédie was “to
change the way people think.”5 Though immediately banned,
it quickly spread among Liberals in Europe and its colonies.
Liberals used Masonic Lodges to expand their ranks in Europe
and its colonies and propagate liberalism. Masonic lodges
28
Jailed at the Bilibid then exiled to Guam at age 84: Tandang Sora gave refuge to the
Katipuneros and refused to divulge information about the revolutionary activities.
eventually were used as jumping boards in organizing the
people for revolution. It influenced and inspired a world revolution that included the American War of Independence, the
French Revolution, the Latin American Revolutions, the Revolutions of 1848 in 50 countries, the Spanish Glorious revolution of 1868, the Philippine Revolution of 1896 and even Sun
Yat Sen’s National Revolution in China.
In this era, which became known as the Age of Enlightenment, some of the most prominent philosophers to emerge
in the cause of Liberalism were Spinoza, John Locke 1632–
1704), Pierre Bayle (1647–1706), Newton (1643–1727), Voltaire (1694–1778) and Rousseau (1712 – 1778).
c) What are the core beliefs of Liberalism?
Libertarians, or liberals, believed that by natural law, all humans are born equal and are endowed with inalienable
rights. John Locke6, identified these inalienable rights as “life,
liberty, and estate (property)”.
Thomas Jefferson’s reformulation of this dictum was adopted
by the defiant Continental Congress on July 4, 1776 (which
would become known as the US Declaration of Independence):
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
men [sic] are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights as
the rights that included Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness.
The French Revolution battle cry, “liberté, égalité, fraternité”
(liberty, equality, fraternity), was an adaptation of the motto
of Masonic Lodges, which Liberals and Republicans managed
to transform as centers of liberalism.
Liberals believed that these inalienable rights could not be
taken away by the state (monarchies and the papacy at that
time). Governments, they asserted, must derive their existence and powers from a social contract with the people and
their continuing consent. The basic binding contract of this
relationship was the constitution. The continuing consent of
the people was derived from elections and referendums.
Locke proposed that man could not be trusted by his own
devices for he was by nature selfish and could do harm to the
general public. Government, therefore, must always act on
the basis of consent from the people.
The French Revolution came out with a “Declaration of the
Rights of Man” which would be approved by the National Assembly on August 26, 1789. It became the basis of the French
Constitution. The Declaration provides the classic premises
of Liberalism.
29
From
of History:
The Human
RightsRights
Challenge
in the Philippine
Security Sector
FromFour
FourNodes
Strands
of History:
The Human
Challenge
in the Philippine
Security Sector
The Declaration of the Rights of Man
• Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.
• The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man.
These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.
• The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the
nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.
• Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything
which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the
natural rights of each man has no limits except those
which assure to the other members of the society the
enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only
be determined by law.
• Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything
not provided for by law.
30
30
• Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through
his representative, in its foundation. It must be
the same for all, whether it protects or punishes.
All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are
equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities,
and without distinction except that of their virtues
and talents.
• No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned
except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order,
shall be punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested in virtue of the law shall submit without delay,
as resistance constitutes an offense.
• The law shall provide for such punishments only as
are strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall
suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law passed and promulgated before the commission of the offense.
• As all persons are held innocent until they shall have
been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing
of the prisoner’s person shall be severely repressed
by law.
• No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions,
including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.
• The free communication of ideas and opinions is
one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every
citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with
freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of
this freedom as shall be defined by law.
• The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the
personal advantage of those to whom they shall be
entrusted.
• A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among
all the citizens in proportion to their means.
• All the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the necessity of
the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know
to what uses it is put; and to fix the proportion, the
mode of assessment and of collection and the duration of the taxes.
• Society has the right to require of every public agent
an account of his administration.
• A society in which the observance of the law is not
assured, nor the separation of powers defined, has no
constitution at all.
• Property being an inviolable and sacred right, no one
can be deprived of it, unless demanded by public necessity, legally constituted, explicitly demands it, and
under the condition of a just and prior indemnity.
These core beliefs eventually found expression in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(1966).
31
d) Why is the Right of Revolution an important
feature of Liberalism?
Another major contribution of John Locke to the Philosophy
of Liberalism that gained acceptance as a basic tenet of Liberalism was the idea that under natural law, all people have the
right to revolt when the government acted against the interests of its citizens, and replace it with a government that did.
This right was an obligation and a safeguard against tyranny.7
In the American Declaration of Independence, Locke’s right
to revolution was expressed in the following manner:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed, — That whenever
any Form of Government becomes destructive of
these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or
to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments
long established should not be changed for light
and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed
32
to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right
themselves by abolishing the forms to which they
are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses
and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to
throw off such Government, and to provide new
Guards for their future security.
In the 1793 Revolutionary Constitution of France, the “Right
to Rebel” tenet of Liberalism was embodied in the following
articles: Article 33, “Resistance to oppression is the consequence of the other rights of man”; Article 34, that says if
one is oppressed, everyone is; Article 27, “Let any person
who may usurp the sovereignty be instantly put to death by
free men”; and Article 35, “When the government violates
the rights of the people, insurrection is for the people and for
each portion of the people the most sacred of rights and the
most indispensable of duties.”
3.
How did Liberalism spread and reach
the Philippines?
Liberals stood up to the challenge of stopping monarchism
and papal tyranny. They formed an international brotherhood through a web of Masonic Lodges that were organized
in Europe and the colonies from where they propagated and
organized resistance among the people by establishing various societies and mutual help organizations with seemingly
reformist ends to cover their activities. At a critical juncture
revolutions were waged to topple monarchism and papal tyranny. These revolutions were either insurrectionary, where
mass defections within the armies of the monarchy were
coordinated with uprisings, or wars waged by revolutionary
armies whose core was formed abroad.
Militant liberals were internationalists. It was common for
many liberals who enrolled in military schools to volunteer
their services to a libertarian revolution that erupted. An
example of internationalism in action can be found in the
American Revolution which was heavily financed by machinations of liberals within the French monarchy and the Masonic
lodges in France where Benjamin Franklin was schooled in
liberalism. The French General Lafayette led critical battles in
the American Revolution for Independence and was made a
hero of the American revolution. The Latin American General
Miranda, a mason, fought three revolutions: the American,
the French and the Latin American revolutions.
In the Philippines, liberalism was initially propagated by Masonic Lodges established for foreigners in the 1850’s, at a
time when the colony was used as a place where Spanish lib-
erals where banished and exiled. However, these early efforts
failed to make significant headway because national consciousness and the idea of nationhood was still nonexistent
among the people who still regarded themselves as tribes
and ethnic groups distinct and hostile to other tribes.
National consciousness was basically achieved as an aftermath of the short-lived Spanish Glorious Revolution of
1868 which overthrew Queen Isabella II and established
a liberal constitutional government. In these two years,
the revolutionary liberal government of Spain sent de la
Torre to the Philippines as the Governor General. He was
aided by the militant Philippine-born Spanish liberal Antonio Ma. Regidor, who was assigned the critical position
of engaging the Spanish Friars who held real power in the
islands. This was the short reign of freedom of the press,
association and expression. The full backing of the Filipino
Secularization Movement to counter friar control of parishes and propagation of nationalism in pulpits by Filipino
priests, reforms benefiting Filipino soldiers in the Spanish
Army to influence their allegiance away from the Spanish
friars to the liberal government, among others, provided
the forms by which the people were mass educated towards national consciousness and the idea of liberty.
After the assassination of General Prim, the leader of the
33
Spanish revolution (who held great influence in the Spanish
bureaucracy and army), monarchists were able to return to
power in Spain. The return of repressive measures in the Philippines triggered the launching of the first national revolution in the Philippines. The launch hit a snag, however, when
the fireworks in a Sampaloc fiesta were mistaken by those in
the Cavite naval yard as a signal for the start of a coordinated
uprising in Manila and Cavite.
Spanish liberals that included Miguel Morayta. Many of
these exiles continued with their liberal advocacies, tying
up with the Masonic Lodges in Europe. Many of them remain faceless and nameless.
The suppression of the uprising which became localized and
known as the Cavite Mutiny and its aftermath, the execution
of the popular priests Gomez, Burgos and Zamora, paved the
way for national consciousness to seep in.
Morayta recruited Marcelo H. del Pilar and many Filipino students who formed the core of the Propaganda Movement.
Del Pilar became the leader of Filipino ilustrados in Spain.
The 1896 Revolution
1.
How did educated Filipinos
(Ilustrados) organize and prepare for
another libertarian revolution?
After the Cavite Mutiny, many liberals were exiled to the
Marianas and far away islands. After serving their terms,
they established themselves in Hong Kong, Japan, Spain
and London. Antonio Ma. Regidor had managed to escape
and based himself in England where he coordinated with
34
Filipino émigrés and students who went to Spain were systematically introduced to libertarian ideas and recruited to
Free Masonry through the efforts of Morayta and Regidor.
Before he left the Philippines in 1888, del Pilar organized
a little known secessionist organization called El Cinco. It
is believed that the group included del Pilar’s most trusted
political allies: his brother-in-law Deodato Arellano (who
would become the first President of the Katipunan) and
former classmates Mariano Ponce (member of the Hong
Kong revolutionary junta, who headed the 3 arms landing
attempts from Japan during the resumption of the Philippine Revolution in 1898, and 2 attempts during the Philippine-American War), Pedro Serrano Laktaw (who headed
the organization of Masonic Lodges in the Philippines) and
Apolinario Mabini (who became the key adviser and headed the Aguinaldo revolutionary cabinet).
Spain-based leaders of the
reform movement: Rizal, del
Pilar and Ponce (ca. 1890).
(c) Public domain.
The following revolutionary projects were carried out by the
liberal ilustrados under del Pilar’s leadership:
a) The consolidation of Filipino Mason liberals in Europe
into one mother lodge, Logia Solidaridad, with the
blessings of Grand Master Miguel Morayta of Grande
Oriente Español, and its expansion in the Philippines
with Pedro Serrano Laktaw as key organizer (resulting
in the organization of 90 All-Filipino Masonic Lodges
and triangulos nationwide propagating liberalism and
the works of Rizal and the Propaganda Movement).
b) Rizal’s three projects:
• the failed procurement of a large cache of firearms
in Japan before he organized La Liga Filipina in 1892.
The arms deal was estimated to be between 15,000
to 20,000 firearms and an ample supply of ammunition. Rizal also tapped associates Evangelista et al. to
canvass wholesale prices of rifles and ammunition in
Belgium at about this time.
• The Borneo project, which was by logical deduction
the place of destination of the firearms following the
Latin American experiences of organizing an army prior to a revolution overseas. Britain and the North Bor35
neo Company had offered Rizal an unusual generous
aid consisting of the lease or sale of the property for
999 years, of 100,000 hectares in Borneo where he
can relocate his family and the 250 displaced families
of Calamba, with an autonomous local government.
Reformist or
revolutionary?
Rizal was never considered a reformist
and Bonifacio as the revolutionary during
the entire length of the revolution. Those
who propositioned Rizal as a reformist
omit the fact that after the Katipunan
was organized, Arellano, Bonifacio and
Mabini tried to revive La Liga Filipina. But
squabbles between Bonifacio and Mabini
on the issue of where the collected funds
would be centralized (i.e., Katipunan or
the center, which was MH del Pilar) led to
its organizational demise. La Liga was part
of a comprehensive plan in the conduct of
the revolution. It was necessary to have an
organization directed by free masons that
could operate legally to organize the people
on a nationwide scale, enabling Katipunan
to have a reliable stable recruitment base.
36
• Rizal’s organization of a legal self-help organization,
La Liga Filipina, in 1892, was another classic methodology used by liberal Free Masons prior to launching
a revolution. However, friars already knew about this
libertarian tactic and had Rizal arrested 4 days after
he organized La Liga Filipina.
c) Del Pilar, in coordination with Rizal’s La Liga efforts,
developed the concept of organizing the Katipunan as
an illegal organization that would work to overthrow
the Spanish colonial regime.
2.
How was Andres Bonifacio
enlightened and introduced to
revolution?
Andres Bonifacio was the product of the initiatives of MH del
Pilar and his associates that included Arellano and Mabini.
Bonifacio became organizationally involved in the radical
struggles of the liberals when he was initiated into the Ma-
sonic Lodge Logia Taliba in Tondo in early
1892. He was present
in the organization of
La Liga Filipina in the
same year.
Bonifacio’s key link
with the liberals was
Arellano, who let him
read del Pilar’s letters
and books that were
delivered
through
home-bound couriers
from Barcelona.
3.
What were the ideals of the
Katipunan and its Kartilya?
The Katipunan had four aims, namely:
• to develop a strong alliance with each and every Katipunero
• to unite Filipinos into one solid nation;
• to achieve independence through an armed revolution
• to establish an independent republic.
Kartilya
ng Kati
punan
1.Ang
buhay n
a hind
malaki a
t banal n i ginugugol sa is
ang
ak
hoy na w
alang lili adahilanan ay k
m, kund
amakama
i damon
ndag.
2.Ang
g
gawan
paghaha g magaling na n
mbog o
agbuhat
pagpipit
hindi ta
a sa saril sa
lagang n
i, at
asang gu
alingan,
mawa n
a
y
d
i
k
g
3.Ang
abaitan.
kagtunay
kawang-g na kabanalan a
y ang pa
awa, ang
gkaang isuk
pag-ibig
at ang b
s
a
k
a
p
w
aw
a at
gungusa
p sa tala at kilos, gawa’t
4.Mait
p
g
ana
n
g Katuw
im man
iran.
o
m
a
p
balat, la
uti ang
hat ng t
ao’y mag kulay ng
mangyay
kaka
ar
dunong, ing ang isa’y hih pantay;
sa yama
n, sa gan igtan sa
mahihig
da; ngun
t
a
n
s
a pagkat
5.Ang
it di
ao.
may ma
t
a
a
s
na kaloo
ang pur
ban, inu
i ka
una
may ham ysa pagpipita s
a sarili;
ak na ka
ang
looban,
pagpipit
inuuna
a sa sar
6.Sa ta
a
ong may ili kaysa sa puri. ng
hiya, sali
ta’y pan
unumba
.
37
37
panahon;
angin ang
y
a
s
g
n
o
m
aring
7.Huwag
’y mangyay
la
a
w
a
n
g
n
daan ay
ang yama
ahong nag
n
a
p
it
n
u
g
n
magbalik;
adaan.
pang magd
li
u
abakahin
di na m
g inaapi; k
n
a
o
m
l
o
g
g
8.Ipagtan
y pagapi.
a
m
u
ang
o’y ang ma
n
li
ta
a
m
g
ipaa taon
; matutong
in
9. Ang mg
ih
b
a
s
a
s
awat
iingat sa b
him.
apat ipagli
d
g
n
ki ang
a
im
h
gli
buhay, lala
g
n
ik
n
ti
ak;
a
gm
a at mga an
w
a
10.Sa daan
s
a
g
n
t
o
ug
a,
siyang patn akay ay tungo sa sam
a
m
k
u
y
a asakung ang
ng inaakay
n
a
h
u
g
n
ang pagtutu
ngnang
maan din.
ag mong ti
w
u
h
y
a
e
a
b
ng, kundi
11.Ang ba
ngan lama
a
b
li
a
n
y
a
ga kaisang bag
ramay sa m
a
k
t
a
g
n
a
nang
w
isang katu
gamitin mo
;
y
a
h
u
b
g
on
g kahihirapan nit
ang kanyan
n
a
g
a
it
ip
p
g
inagbubuong pa
ng inang p
a
in
n
a
h
la
ulan.
naan, at ala
ng kasangg
o
iy
a
s
i
w
-i
anak
ag
asawa mo,
haran at n
a
s
in
w
a
g
mo ibig
awin sa
12.Ang di
g mong gag
a
w
u
h
y
a
,
g iba.
at kapatid
t kapatid n
a
k
a
cinto
n
a
,
a
asaw
Emilio Ja
y
b
d
e
n
n
Pe
38
38
The Katipunan saw
the need to draw up
a Code of Conduct for
its members. Bonifacio made the first
draft but found Emilio
Jacinto’s draft better
and had it adopted. It
became known as the Kartilya ng Katipunan. It was inspired
by the ideals of Liberalism, and it recognized human rights: it
was a code of conduct that made the Katipunan a true “protector of the people”.
4.
How did Bonifacio accelerate
Katipunan recruitment?
Starting only with 300 members when he assumed the presidency in 1885, Andres Bonifacio was able to bring the Katipunan to a membership of 30,000 (not counting affiliates) in
less than two years.
When the Katipunan was organized, it was decided that Rizal
would be its honorary president. This was however kept secret from the membership.
When Bonifacio took over the Katipunan he made known to
the mass membership that Rizal was its honorary president.
Rizal’s picture was placed in their secret recruitment headquarters and his name was used as a pass word. Rizal had
become a celebrity and a national symbol of resistance even
before he organized La Liga Filipina because Masonic Lodges
had been propagating his works in their places of residence
and work places.
His second move was to portray openly that del Pilar was behind the organization of the Katipunan. Being the recognized
father of Philippine Masonry, del Pilar commanded a huge
following in the Masonic Lodges in the Philippines. Bonifacio
used the occasion of publishing the Katipunan’s first and only
issue of Kalayaan to make this known. Its release in March
1896 led to a vicious attack on all Masonic Lodges, swinging
Free Masons to the Katipunan together with their followers
in the communities where they operated. Del Pilar died on
July 4, 1896 in Barcelona as a pauper, isolated because of his
advanced stage of tuberculosis – at that time an incurable
disease.
These two acts substantially increased the membership of
the Katipunan in 1896.
5.
What were Rizal’s ideas on the
Philippine revolution? Did the
Katipunan accept his advice?
In response to Bonifacio’s call for an immediate uprising, the
Katipunan national council decided to ask for Rizal’s approval
first (note: this is based on Santiago Alvarez and Pio Valenzuela’s account).
The resolution to ask Rizal’s approval was predicated on the
belief of the majority of the leadership that Rizal was the real
leader of the Katipunan as Bonifacio had declared to them
when they joined the Katipunan. Thus in that meeting, the
overwhelming majority postponed the decision for a general
uprising. Everybody except Bonifacio’s small executive group
(Jacinto and Valenzuela) knew that Rizal was never informed
that he was the honorary president. Bonifacio chose Pio Valenzuela to be the official Katipunan emissary to relay the
resolutions for approval.
Bonifacio was a believer in the French Model, that the question of arms would be solved by the armed uprising itself
while it was in motion. He also believed that major defections
in the Spanish Army would occur once they started the revolution which would tilt the balance in favor of the revolution.
39
Del Pilar and Rizal on
the other hand believed in the Latin
American Model: that
it was necessary first
to form a revolutionary army abroad and
gather arms. They also
believed in organizing
Masonic organization
that would propagate
the ideals of liberalism
and develop a consensus for a revolution among the people nationwide. Those enlightened would then be organized into a national mass organization, La Liga Filipina, that would serve as an insurrectionary force and a logistical machinery when the revolutionary
army lands in Philippine soil.
Rizal put forward a compromise solution to Pio Valenzuela
in their talks in Dapitan. These were (a) wait for the arrival of weapons before starting the uprising as there were
ongoing negotiations started by Rizal with the Japanese
government before he went to the Philippines (as they
spoke the negotiations according to Spanish interrogation
reports of members of the Compromisarios involved the
40
provision of 100,000 Murata rifles through a loan with the
Japanese government) ; (b) neutralize or win over the “rich
Filipinos” as they would be the most dangerous enemy if
they sided with Spain and (c) and appoint Antonio Luna as
head of military affairs.
Bonifacio tried to comply with these instructions but went
ahead with the armed uprising when the Katipunan was prematurely discovered. He was able to win over the rich Filipinos by implicating them through fake letters resulting in the
arrest, torture, and exile more than 150 prominent Filipinos
in Luzon to Cartagena, Africa, Marianas Islands and elsewhere. This led the rich Filipinos to side with and finance the
Katipunan.
6.
What was the historic role of the
Philippine military in the victory of
the 1896 Revolution?
The defection of Filipino soldiers in the Spanish Army to the
side of the revolution was the decisive factor in the military
victory of the 1896 Revolution, especially when fighting resumed in 1898. They helped the revolutionary army raise
their fighting capabilities to a much higher level while on the
move to seek battle and in the trenches.
IV.
The american Legacy
41
I. The coming of the
United States
They operationalized the doctrine which could be summarized as follows:
1.
Why did the United States take
interest in the Philippines?
In the mid 19th century, a powerful group emerged in the US
wanting to transform the United States from a regional American power (Monroe Doctrine) into a global power (Mahan
Doctrine).
It was Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan who developed the doctrine, whose general theoretical framework first appeared in
his book “The Importance of Sea Power upon History, 16601783” (published in 1890). He advocated the thesis that the
key to world power was the control of the world’s sea routes
of commerce through naval power projected from strategic naval bases. This became known as the Mahan Doctrine
(1890).
Advocates of America’s “Manifest Destiny” gravitated to Mahan’s naval theoretical conclusions, recruited him and became a conspiratorial group. One of the key leaders of this
group was Theodore Roosevelt, an advocate of US sea power.
42
a) To become a world power, the United States must become a sea power.
b) To become a sea power, it has to build a powerful
navy and take control of strategic islands, identified
as Cuba, Puerto Rico, Hawaii and the Philippines, as
naval bases from which the US could be able to project sea power and control world commerce.
2.
What motivated the US to become a
world power?
US factories began to expand to such a level that the commodities they produced went beyond the needs of their
populace. This created a major crisis of overproduction.
Without markets to absorb US commodities, the specter of
economic collapse triggering factory shutdowns and mass
unemployment due to unsustainable industrial growth became a grim reality. They also needed cheap raw materials
and fossil fuel to meet the requirements of their industries.
Sea power had been demonstrated by the US and Great Britain as a way of opening new markets.
The American Legacy
US Admiral Matthew Perry forced Japan to open its ports to
US goods when he brought a fleet of modern war ships to
Japan twice and threatened to bombard Japan’s cities. Japan
capitulated, leading to the Convention of Kanagawa in 1854,
and the United States-Japan Treaty of Amity and Commerce
(1858). Other European allies also pounced on Japan, forcing
her to sign similar unequal treaties with Britain (Anglo-Japanese Friendship Treaty, October 1854), Tsarist
Russia (Treaty of Shimoda, 7 February 1855),
and France (Treaty of Amity and Commerce, 9
October 1858).
Illegal occupants: U.S. troops raising the American flag at Fort San Antonio de Abad, Malate, Philippines, ca. 1899.
(c) Public domain
43
3.
Why was the problem of
overproduction detrimental to the
development of the Philippines and other
non-industrialized economies?
(c) Public domain
The new gods and their abject supplicants: Young Filipinos kneel before soldiers of the 20th
Kansas. The original caption reads: “How the Twentieth Kansas boys were met by conquered
natives, Philippine Islands.” Photo taken in 1899.
Industrialized powers forced unequal treaties on non-industrialized nations to ensure their commodities were sold in local markets. These unequal treaties meant that these affected nations had to be assigned to underdevelopment so as not
to carry out national industrialization and become competitors for markets. They were assigned to a fate of underdevelopment, continuing with their previous rural landlord-tenant
economies immersed in poverty.
4.
How did the US annexationists justify
their acts of forcing other nations to
open their economies to commodities of
industrial powers?
(c) Public domain
As one US soldier exclaimed: “It must simply have rained lead.” Dead Filipino fighters at the
Santa Ana circular trench. It is said that after the Battle of Manila, members of the US Army
hospital corps were startled to discover that several women, dressed as males and with
closely-cropped hair, were among the dead. Photo dated February 5, 1899.
44
The need to expand was justified with the idea of Rudyard
Kipling’s “White Man’s Burden” and “Manifest Destiny”:
that Filipinos (notwithstanding the fact that the backwardness was a direct result of Monarchism and papal tyranny),
were Chinese half-breeds, described as savages, heathens,
The American Legacy
niggers,
gugus, and Indians and had
to be, as President
McKinley declared,
Christianized (again!),
civilized
and
taught
self
rule. This was
essentially the
same
arguments which
the
Spanish
c o n q u i s ta d o res and Spanish friars used
more than 300
years
earlier
(i.e., that the
non-Christian
world
were
barbarians, savages, pagans and cannibals). McKinley also
gave the reason that if they did not take the Philippines,
other European powers would anyway.
5.
Why did the phenomenon of
overproduction lead to wars?
Former European empires which were industrializing (e.g.,
Britain, France, etc.) retained the colonies of their former
monarchies with an iron grip. They however also wanted
more markets. These retained colonies constituted nearly
the whole world, preventing new industrial powers such as
the United States, Germany and Japan without areas for expansion for markets and sources of raw materials for their
industries.
Asia remained a European property in the new economic order of industrial overproduction. India, Hong Kong, Malaya
and Borneo were retained by Britain, while Cambodia, Laos
and Vietnam were retained by France; the Dutch controlled
Indonesia, while the Philippines and Guam were controlled
by Spain. China, during its century of humiliation after it failed
to stop the British dumping of opium, became a pie shared by
Britain, France, the United States, and Tsarist Russia.
But there were nations led by the United States, Germany
and Japan that had successfully carried out industrialization yet were left out from the international market pie.
45
This was a major cause of wars that eventually led to two
world wars.
This became known as the Monroe Doctrine, which became
a foreign policy on December 2, 1823.
6.
The third and final phase was the Mahan Doctrine, a doctrine
for world dominance in commerce and military hegemony.
How did the United States solve
the problem of overseas markets
and raw materials to stave off a crisis of
overproduction?
As industrialization progressed, the United States started to
expand its territories beyond the 13 original states that declared independence from Britain. They took away the lands
of the native Indian nations through genocide, annexed and/
or bought the territories in North America that were occupied by Spain, France and Mexico. They bought Alaska from
Russia. These land purchases were necessary in order to secure them permanently on a legal basis.
The second phase was the control of the whole Northern,
Central and Southern America which had acquired independence through libertarian revolutions. The US warned all European nations that those who tried to take these nations
would be interpreted as a declaration of war on the United
States of America. They justified this move with the slogan,
“America for the Americans”, a policy that meant that these
nations were the economic backyard of the United States.
46
The Mahan Doctrine was translated into an operational plan
which was ironed out even before the Spanish-American War
had occurred.
The power to force other nations to open their markets for
American goods, extract raw materials, and protect American
commercial ships (which also indirectly implied the power to
embargo and stop the free flow of commercial ships of other
nations) could be better achieved by projecting naval power
from their strategically positioned naval bases world-wide. It
was along this thinking that many of its adherents successfully pushed the United States to build a powerful navy.
7.
How did Germany and Japan deal
with the problem of overproduction?
Germany and Japan, like the US, did not have the advantage of former European empires that had extensive territories to absorb their industrial commodities. They sought
markets through a militarist policy which became the basis
The American Legacy
of their national interests.
In industrialized Germany there emerged an influential militarist group that advocated the doctrine of Lebensraum (“living space”) starting in 1901 that would become a national
doctrine by 1912. It would bring Germany to World War I
(1914 – 1918 ) and thirty years later to World War II (1939 –
1945). The original scope of Lebensraum was Eastern Europe
and Russia, but this was expanded in World War II to include
the whole of Europe and European colonies.
Japanese Meiji empire in its later years carried a centrally directed industrialization which made Japan a regional industrial power.
Japan’s industrialization also led to overproduction. The need
for secure markets and raw materials in Asia which was already owned by the West saw the emergence of ultra-nationalists who organized secret societies that pledged loyalty to
the Emperor and greatness for Japan. Membership included
influential politicians, military officers, industrialists and ordinary citizens from all walks of life.
Though humiliated by the west with unequal treaties, the
With nothing but bolos: Fighters in the Island of Samar
(c) Public domain
47
The most powerful of these secret societies were the
Genyōsha (Black Ocean Society, 1881) and Kokuryukai (Black
Dragon Society, 1901). They advocated, organized and significantly financed Japanese militarist expansion and provided a
source for capital accumulation for industrialization.
These secret societies were patriotic quasi paramilitary organizations which raised funds based on vices abroad. They established brothels in key cities controlled by western powers
in Asia. A special intelligence school recruited prostitutes before being deployed to brothels abroad where they targeted
foreign high government officials and military officers to assist the Japanese government in collecting vital intelligence
information, while raising money through these ventures. In
the Philippines, they opened a brothel in Binondo and later
transferred to Sampaloc, Manila. In China, they worked closely with Chinese Triad Secret Societies which supported the
struggle against western foreign powers.
Japan and its secret societies partially financed and provided
refuge for leaders of independence movements in Asia to
destabilize and weaken the grip of western powers in their
Asian colonies.
Japan secretly supported the Philippine Republic during the
Philippine-American War. They sent a contingent of volunteer
48
Japanese officers and men to aid General Aguinaldo during the
Philippine-American War, but the ship that transported them,
including the big cache of rifles, cannons and munitions that
Mariano Ponce had procured, sank off the coast of Formosa.
The weapons were retrieved and later donated by Ponce to Sun
Yat Sen, who used them for China’s 1911 Revolution.
Japan looked at Korea, Manchuria and eventually the whole
of China and Siberia as its sphere of influence. It carried out
an expansionist war against China, which became known as
the First Sino–Japanese War (1 August 1894 – 17 April 1895)
over the control of Korea. It fought Russia in the Russo-Japanese War (8 February 1904 – 5 September 1905) over the
control of Manchuria and Korea.
In later years, Japan included the whole of Southeast Asia as
its “ co-prosperity sphere” for the market of its commodities
and as sources of raw materials.
To have the military means, Japan organized a modern army
using French and German military advisers and directed its
industries to create a powerful industrial-military complex to
produce its armament requirements for international expansion. Military leaders closely studied the strategic concepts
of the Mahan Doctrine and applied it for Japan’s imperial interests, building a powerful offensive-oriented navy. In the
The American Legacy
process, Japan defeated China and Tsarist Russia to gain a
foothold on Manchuria, Korea and Siberia.
8.
How did the Spanish-American
War provide the opportunity for US
expansion to the Philippines?
Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam were Spanish
colonies. Even before a war would erupt between the US and
Spain, these islands were already identified by annexationists
as key areas from which US naval bases could be established
to project military power world-wide to ensure that US commodities could flow freely.
Atrocities of Spanish forces in Cuba against Cuban revolutionaries provided the perfect excuse to seize these strategic areas. American public indignation over the deaths estimated
at 100,000-300,000 in Wyler’s Spanish concentration camps
in Cuba was exploited by expansionists.
Sick fantasies of the imperial imaginary: A page from the March 5, 1899 issue of The
Boston Sunday Globe.
The US Congress came out with a resolution calling for US intervention limited only to the issue of Cuba (i.e., to stop the
atrocities, and for Spain to leave Cuba). But the invasion of
Cuba, Philippines and Guam was pre-planned with the Navy
already logistically prepared, positioned and oriented to take
In a race against time, McKinley had continued the organization and mobilization of US troops for the occupation of the
Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico and Guam even after the mutually agreed cessation of hostilities in August 1898 between
the US and Spain.
(c) Public domain
the Spanish Fleet in Manila before Congress had made an ultimatum and Spain declared war. Roosevelt had set his eyes
on the Philippines as early as 1887.
49
Spain was already beaten and ready to surrender to the Filipino revolutionaries as early as May 1, 1898 after the Battle
of Manila Bay, but annexationists needed time to organize,
train and deploy troops to Spain’s strategic colonies.
A sizeable force was needed to accept the formal surrender
and replace the Spanish troops still holding parts of Manila.
A much greater force was needed to subjugate the new independent republic.
It was impressed upon the mass of US volunteers that they
would fight Spanish tyranny. After reaching the Philippines,
they would be told that the enemy were Filipino freedom
fighters.
9.
How did the Annexationists
manipulate the events leading to the
Spanish-American War?
Howard K. Beale in his biography of the president, “Theodore
Roosevelt and the Rise of America to World Power,” wrote
about this episode (as also noted by William P. Meyers): 8; 9
Roosevelt, unable to persuade McKinley to go to
war, used his position as Assistant Secretary of
50
Grim public tidings: 3 Moro ‘rebels’ executed by US authorities in Jolo.
(c) Public domain
the Navy to prepare for war anyway. On February
25, 1898, Secretary John Long took a day off and
“Roosevelt became Acting Secretary for three or
four hours.” He quickly executed a number of preplanned measures. He sent instructions to George
Dewey and bought coal in the Far East. He ordered
ammunition, moved vessels around, and even
asked Congress for legislation. John Long “never
left Roosevelt in charge again even for part of a
day. Yet apparently he did not withdraw the orders
to Dewey. [68-69]
The American Legacy
Roosevelt’s instructions to Dewey amounted to
orders to seize the Philippines, even though the
Philippines were not an issue between Spain and
the U.S. Roosevelt is on record of wanting to seize
the Philippines at least as early as 1897. He handpicked Dewey to head the Asiatic squadron, over
opposition. Roosevelt “cut through red tape and
navy routines and had coal sent him.” On his famous February 25, 1898 he ordered the entire
squadron except the Monocacy to Hong Kong, and
ordered Dewey to go on the offensive in the Philippines if war on Spain was declared. Long failed to
recall these instructions. “The Assistant Secretary
[of the Navy] had seized the opportunity … to insure our [the U.S.] grabbing the Philippines without
a decision to do so by either Congress or the President, or least of all the people. [70]
Note that Roosevelt’s illegal and clandestine orders to prepare the attack on the Philippines was made on February
25, 1898 while the actual Declaration of War by the US
Congress was made on April 25, 1898, exactly two months
later as a result of the mysterious sinking of USS Maine (an
incident that was never proven by investigations to be the
handiwork of Spain). The Battle of Manila Bay occurred on
May 1, 1898.
B. The Philippine
American War
1.
Why did Admiral Dewey link up with
Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo against the
Spanish forces in the Philippines?
Admiral Dewey commanded the Asiatic Squadron, a modern
naval fleet that was capable of destroying the Spanish navy
docked in Manila Bay. But the US armed forces still lacked
troops to occupy Manila. Dewey needed time for the US to
recruit and form infantry units for this purpose.
The possibility of Aguinaldo resuming the Philippine Revolution to victory loomed as Spain could no longer send reinforcements and logistics to the Philippines. The Spanish Army
in the Philippines became highly demoralized knowing that
they were now on their own. On the other hand, the revolutionary forces in the Philippines remained intact. Aguinaldo
did not disband the revolutionary army after the Pact of Biak
na Bato. They only turned over about 1,000 old rifles and accepted the initial 400,000 settlement amount that could buy
at least 50,000 new rifles (at 7 pesos apiece) with enough
money left to fund a major offensive. Hong Kong and Singapore, being international British free ports, had merchant
51
(c) Public domain
Soldiers of the Philippine Republic, ca. 1899. Leaders of the newly-inaugurated state tried to show the organized and “civilized” character of the republic’s army.
ships for lease that could bring Aguinaldo and whatever cargo
he had to any part of Luzon. This capability worried Dewey
and the Annexationists.
were still training and organizing them as part of the machinations of annexationists in the US Congress to expand its army
from 28,000 to 300,000 for the Spanish-American War.
Dewey wanted to control Aguinaldo so he could monitor, and
sabotage his efforts to achieve victory over Spain. At about this
time the US still had no ground expeditionary force available and
Negotiations were initiated by the US between March and
April 1898 with Aguinaldo through the Commander of USS
Petrel on behalf of Admiral Dewey. The Americans gave verbal
52
The American Legacy
The Philippine-American War
(1899 – 1902)
Philippines
• 20,000 soldiers killed in action.
• 200,000 estimated civilians
dead. Some historians place the
number of civilian casualty at
500,000 or higher.
U.S.
• 4,390 dead: 1,053 killed in
action; 3,337 other deaths.
• 2,818 wounded.
assurances that the US recognized the revolution and wanted
to help in the struggle for independence as they were doing
in Cuba and that the US had no intention of taking the Philippines as a colony. Aguinaldo believed the sincerity of Dewey
and agreed to cooperate. This would be a fatal mistake.
2.
Was the Philippine-American War
approved by US Congress?
There was never a congressional resolution nor a budget allocation to wage a war against the Philippine Republic as was
the standard practice of the United States in declaring wars.
US war veterans of the Philippine-American War are classified as US pensioners of the Spanish-American War. Congress
never appropriated money for the invasion of the Philippines
and an attack on the revolutionary forces. Annexationists
within the US government (through President McKinley) and
annexationists in the US Senate conspired to tap appropriated funds for the Spanish-American War to be used for the
Philippine-American War.
Theodore Roosevelt was never punished for his misdeeds because he became President.
3.
Was there popular support from
the American people for the
independence of the Philippines?
The Philippine Republic (1898) found powerful allies among liberals in the United States who opposed the annexationist plot
53
“Count the
dead niggers”:
American soldiers
watch as Filipino
civilians bury their
compatriots.
(c) Public domain
to take Cuba and the Philippines as colonies. These liberals organized themselves into a group called the American Anti-Imperialist League. It had powerful allies in the US congress. This organization believed that the US could not annex the Philippines
and Cuba because that would violate the US Constitutional principle of “consent of the governed” and the foreign policy laid
down by President Abraham Lincoln:
54
No man is good enough to govern another man
without that other’s consent. When the white man
governs himself, that is self-government; but when
he governs himself and also governs another man,
that is more than self-government—that is despotism (Abraham Lincoln’s Speech of October 16,
1854).
The American Legacy
Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not
for themselves, and under a just God cannot long
retain it. (Lincoln’s letter to H. L. Pierce, April 6,
1859)
4.
What was the significance of the
1898 Treaty of Paris?
The Spanish-American War only took 10 weeks, starting with
the US Declaration of War on April 25, 1898. Hostilities by
mutual consent ended on August 12, 1898.
The Treaty of Paris which was concluded on December 10,
1898 transformed the issue of the Philippines from a US constitutional and foreign policy issue on the principle of “consent of the governed” into a simple absolute deed of sale.
In this treaty, annexationists inserted the acquisition of the
Philippines for US $20 million despite the fact that the Philippines was already an independent republic starting on June
12, 1898 and Mindanao and the Sulu Archipelago were never
conquered by Spain, which could not claim territorial jurisdiction outside the walls of the forts.
Through this treaty, it was also agreed that the US would annex Puerto Rico, Cuba and Guam.
5.
Why was the Philippine-American
War considered a treacherous act on
the part of the US?
Dewey and his subordinates acted with great malice, bad
faith and deception, pretending to be libertarians and allies
of the Philippine Revolution. They negotiated with Aguinaldo
on this basis.
On May 1, 1898, Dewey’s fleet destroyed the Spanish armada in Manila Bay. The demoralized and logistically deprived
Spanish forces offered to surrender the Philippines.
Dewey did not accept the surrender of Spanish land forces
for this would create a vacuum and make the Filipino forces
fill the void and complicate matters for the annexationists.
On May 17, 1898 Aguinaldo landed in Cavite aboard a US ship
with thousands of revolutionary forces waiting for him to lead
a general offensive.
The revolutionary army – while numerous and was widely
supported – had only 5,000 rifles because the US did not deliver the second batch of weapons that Aguinaldo had already
paid for using the revolutionary funds. This non-delivery was
55
an intentional act of sabotage to ensure that the Philippine
army had limited offensive capability.
Dewey and his handlers in Washington underestimated the
boundless strength of a populace determined to liberate and
end the 350-year rule of Spain. They did not anticipate that
the 5,000 rifles and captured Spanish canons the revolutionary forces had would be reinforced by the mass defection of
the Spanish colonial army with their weapons, artillery and
military expertise. They did not anticipate that an insurrectionary army could reorganize themselves into a regular army
while on the move as they took one Spanish stronghold after
another in all provinces of Luzon. They did not anticipate that
the insurrectionary force could enlist the mass of defectors
for immediate combat duty, organize a chain of command
complete with staffs, territorial commands (war zones), with
combat troops organized at battalion level to the squad. They
did not anticipate that the local army could solve the complex logistical problems associated with launching a general
offensive and engage the enemy combining artillery and infantry tactics and the employment of well fortified trenches
to tighten an encirclement ring around Manila. In barely a
month (from May 17, 1898 to June 1898), the revolution had
cleared all of Luzon except a small pocket in Manila and marooned troops elsewhere.
56
The Spanish collapsed under the popular offensive. From its
army of 46,000 at the end of 1897, the Spanish Army had
dwindled to 12,700 in June of 1898. There were 15,000 Spanish prisoners of war, mostly Spanish soldiers that were held
by Aguinaldo. The remaining soldiers of about 20,000 were
killed or had defected. There were some holdouts in faraway
Spanish forts but they were insignificant in number and had
been marooned by the events.
Surprised at the fast turn of events, in which the Filipinos
had practically liberated Luzon, Gen. Wesley Merritt cabled
Washington: “Situation difficult. Insurgents have announced
independent government; some are unfriendly, fearing they
will not be permitted Manila with my troops: will join Dewey
in note demanding surrender, with assurance of protection
from rebels”.10
Seeing the unexpected change in the war situation, the US
immediately intervened to halt the revolutionary offensive.
They demanded that Aguinaldo stop the offensive and placed
an initial contingent of US soldiers between the Spanish and
Filipino positions.
Aguinaldo permitted the landing of the first US military contingent to take positions at the Cavite Arsenal and Fort Felipe.
After a few days he talked with General Anderson and asked
The American Legacy
him what US intentions were.
Anderson replied: “We have lived as a nation 122 years, and
have never owned or desired a colony. We consider ourselves
a great nation as we are, and I leave you to draw your own
inference.”11 Aguinaldo again believed this.
Against the better judgment of Aguinaldo’s field commanders
and the advice of Antonio Luna to immediately march their
troops straight to the Spanish lines while they were gripped in
terror, panic and disarray, Aguinaldo ordered a halt of the offensive. Meanwhile, US troops continued to pour in and take
up strategic positions. Aguinaldo’s field generals watched
with suspicion, anxiety and frustration as the US displayed
American flags in the trenches they vacated. Aguinaldo ordered the further retreat of the revolutionary army so US
troops could take position in the front line trenches.
The missed opportunity to take Fort Intramuros at a critical moment enabled the Spanish forces to consolidate and
strengthen their defenses. General Anderson assured the
Spanish forces that they would be protected by the United
States.
On June 12, 1898, a Declaration of Independence and the
establishment of the Philippine Republic was proclaimed in
Cavite. Admiral Dewey and US generals who were officially
invited as honored guests snubbed the event.
From Hong Kong, Agoncillo, the head of the Philippine diplomatic corps, warned Aguinaldo about the intentions of the
US towards the Philippines. He reported that at that moment,
the US was already treacherously attacking the Cuban freedom fighters in their stronghold in Havana, their supposed
allies.
On June 27, 1898, Aguinaldo pressed Admiral Dewey to carry
out a coordinated attack to take Manila. Dewey’s ships could
bombard Intramuros while the Filipino soldiers could easily
storm it into submission. Dewey stalled.
On that same day, Dewey sent a cable to the Secretary of Defense reporting:
Consistently I have refrained from assisting him
[Aguinaldo] in any way with the force under my
command, and on several occasions I have declined requests that I should do so, telling him the
squadron could not act until the arrival of the United States troops.  At the same time I have given
him to understand that I consider insurgents as
friends, being opposed to a common enemy...My
57
relations with him are cordial, but I am not in his
confidence. The United States has not been bound
in any way to assist insurgents by any act or promises, and he is not, to my knowledge, committed
to assist us. I believe he expects to capture Manila
without my assistance, but [I] doubt [the insurgent’s] ability, they not yet having many guns.
The Americans requested and were allowed in good faith to
take up positions in front line trenches made and occupied
by Filipinos. They were also granted permission to take up
positions in the Cavite Naval Yard. Their officers were allowed
free movement in and around Manila.
Unknown to Filipino soldiers of the Republic, the US expeditionary force in the Philippines was negotiating for a quick
mock battle with Spain in order to exclude the Philippine Republic from the final surrender. President McKinley also gave
instructions to secure Manila from the troops of the Philippine Republic with whatever means was necessary. In this
way they could claim that they were responsible for Spain’s
defeat in the Philippines.
On the other hand, they were exploiting the trust of General Aguinaldo while preparing war against the new Philippine Republic. Their ability to freely move around because
58
of the goodwill of the Philippine Republic allowed them to
carry out covert reconnaissance and intelligence missions on
the strength, weapons, tactical disposition, fortifications and
weaknesses of the revolutionary forces. They were also mapping the terrain.
They continued their military buildup, landing troops, weapons and munitions for a surprise attack even after Spain and
the US agreed to a cessation of hostilities in August of 1898.
Antonio Luna and other key Filipino generals were vocal
against the movements of US troops but Aguinaldo stuck to
his belief that the US was a reliable and trustworthy ally.
When US troop and logistics buildup had already been accomplished in Manila, they put their troops on alert, and used an
unprovoked minor shooting incident initiated by a few American troops as a signal for a generalized surprise attack on
Filipino positions. The surprise attack on Philippine lines was
carried out when most Filipino generals were away.
Having dislodged Filipino soldiers from their positions, US
troops now occupied Manila.
The American Legacy
6.
What was the Philippine Republic’s
war strategy? How was it employed?
Good strategy, bad tactics.
The revolutionary forces recognized that they could not defeat the enemy militarily but they could however drive them
out through political-military means. General Macabulos had
divulged that the Philippine Republic’s aim in the war was
“not to vanquish the U.S. Army but to inflict on them constant
losses.”12 They hoped that this would create an anti-war sentiment among American voters to make their ally, pro-labor,
William Jennings Bryan, presidential candidate of the American Anti-Imperialist league, win over Theodore Roosevelt in
the 1890 US Presidential elections. A friendly US president
who will recognize the Philippine Republic would end the
war, pull out US troops and establish an equal and mutually
beneficial relationship with the Philippines.
This strategy most likely emanated from Apolinario Mabini,
who was then the chief adviser of Emilio Aguinaldo and the
head of his War Cabinet.
The operationalization of the strategy, however, was flawed.
It called for the maintenance of a 100,000 troop level that
would fight in a series of blocking forces in trenches and fortified positions where troops of the Republic could inflict
significant casualties on the advancing enemy troops before
retreating to another fortified position in the next town or
advantageous position.
Antonio Luna used the train system from Caloocan to Dagupan to ferry troops and logistical supplies and as his command headquarters.
The weakness of the system was that it removed the element
of surprise and did not allow for the employment of tactical
superiority of engaging a column that was on the move and
isolated from the bulk of enemy forces. Tens of thousands of
Filipinos were mobilized from the barrios to dig the trenches,
allowing US reconnaissance teams to spot them easily and
prepare.
The US army were methodical and did not succumb to the
temptation to advance on contact. They built their own
trenches, positioned their artillery and machine guns, massed
their troops in these fortifications, beefed up their logistics,
and positioned their warships in coastlines near the battle
area to deliver artillery support when possible. These preparations sometimes took days to accomplish as soldiers of the
Philippine Republic waited.
59
US troops initiated the battle when they were already well
prepared. They opened the battle with naval and artillery
bombardment against the static positions, leveling to the
ground even the concrete buildings where the Filipino soldiers were positioned. After crushing the defenses, US troops
finished them off with an infantry advance supported by machine gun fire. This turned the battles into “turkey shoots”.
When Bryan lost the US presidential elections, many members of the Malolos Congress who came from the principalia,
capitulated, promoting a political line of surrender and cooperation to the United States.
C. Human rights violations
during the PhilippineAmerican War
1.
What were some of the major human
rights violations attributed to US
troops during the Philippine-Amerian
War?
a) Genocide in Caloocan (February 10, 1899)
The Battle of Caloocan started on February 10, 1899 with the
60
bombardment and advance of the Kansas Regiment from entrenched positions. It ended in the total annihilation of the
population of Caloocan.
Capt. David S. Elliot of the 20th Kansas Volunteers, wrote:
Caloocan was supposed to contain seventeen
thousand inhabitants. The Twentieth Kansas swept
through it, and now Caloocan contains not one living native.
Minkler, also of the 20th Kansas Volunteers bragged:
We do not take prisoners. At least the Twentieth
Kansas do not. 13
Lt. John F. Hall of the Kansas Regiment, who filed direct charges against his immediate officers on January 9, 1900, reporting directly to General MacArthur, said his charges were supported by 6 captains, 7 lietenants and 7 privates of the 20th
Kansas.
Exerpts:
• Sixth. -- That the said Frederick S. Funston, at said date,
and thereafter, did issue orders to shoot prisoners.
The American Legacy
A group of Filipino soldiers laying down their weapons. The original photo caption reads: ‘Prayer Before the Surrender’, ca. 1900
(c) Public domain
61
• Our regiment participated in the battle of Caloocan,
Philippine Islands, February 10, 1899. At that battle
Funston ordered that no prisoners be taken. (Editor’s
note: Colonel Funston was the highest ranking among
the officers who gave the orders to take no prisoners.
He was directly under Gen. Arthur MacArthur, Jr).
• At an officer's meeting of our regiment, held in the
trenches at Caloocan, March 23, 1899, the day before
our advance on Malolos from Loma, in reference to
a question; Colonel Funston said, with a grin, “Don’t
kill any more prisoners than you have to,” or words to
that effect.
• During the fight before Caloocan an order was passed
down the line, as was the custom when heavy firing
was in progress, to “take no prisoners.” (Hall, quoting
one of his witnesses)
b) Public execution (hanging) of prisoners of war
To instill fear on the population of the rural areas, public
hangings of prisoners of war became a widespread practice.
Gen. Frederick Funston was quoted by a journalist of the
New York Sun in reaction to the courts-martial of Brig.
62
Gen. Jacob H. Smith and Maj. Littleton Waller for atrocities committed in Samar:14
I personally strung up thirty-five Filipinos without
trial, so what was all the fuss over Waller’s ‘dispatching’ a few ‘treacherous savages’? If there
had been more Smiths and Wallers, the war would
have been over long ago. Impromptu domestic
hanging might also hasten the end of the war. For
starters, all Americans who had recently petitioned
Congress to sue for peace in the Philippines should
be dragged out of their homes and lynched.
 One of the last to be hanged was the Katipunan leader, Macario Sakay, who was enticed to come down on a promise of
amnesty. His last defiant words were:
Death comes to all of us sooner or later, so I will
face the Lord Almighty calmly. But I want to tell
you that we were not bandits and robbers, as
the Americans have accused us, but members of
the revolutionary force that defended our mother
country, Filipinas! Farewell! Long live the republic
and may our independence be born in the future!
Farewell! Long live Filipinas!
The American Legacy
c) Widespread use of “water cure” to extract information from POWs and civilians
“Water cure” was used extensively during the PhilippineAmerican War on both civilians and captured soldiers of the
Philippine Republic. Many of these were documented in photos that appeared in Life Magazine and US newspapers.
Lt. Grover Flint, a US officer who served in the PhilippineAmerican War described the effects of water cure especially
on senior citizens.15; 16
A man is thrown down on his back and three or
four men sit or stand on his arms and legs and
hold him down; and either a gun barrel or a rifle barrel or a carbine barrel or a stick as big as
a belaying pin, -- that is, with an inch circumference, -- is simply thrust into his jaws and his jaws
are thrust back, and, if possible, a wooden log
or stone is put under his head or neck, so he can
be held more firmly. In the case of very old men
I have seen their teeth fall out, -- I mean when it
was done a little roughly. He is simply held down
and then water is poured onto his face down his
throat and nose from a jar; and that is kept up until
the man gives some sign or becomes unconscious.
The cure that brought death: Soldiers of the 35th U.S. Volunteer Infantry Regiment
administering the water cure on a suspected Filipino fighter. As one American magazine
reported, the water cure’s after effects “are said to be beneficial to the Filipino, creating a
desire for a higher education and a further knowledge of American Institutions.”
(c) Public domain
And, when he becomes unconscious, he is simply
rolled aside and he is allowed to come to. In almost every case the men have been a little roughly
handled. They were rolled aside rudely, so that
water was expelled. A man suffers tremendously,
there is no doubt about it. His sufferings must be
that of a man who is drowning, but cannot drown.
Another soldier, Sergeant Charles S. Riley of the Twenty-sixth
Infantry, described a torture session using the water cure to ex63
tract information from Filipino prisoners of war during the Philippine-American War. Here he identifies by name a US military
doctor who presided over the clinical aspect of the procedure, in
clear violation of the Hippocratic Oath.
The [prisoner] was tied and placed on his back under a water tank holding probably one hundred
gallons.
The faucet was opened and a stream of water was
forced down or allowed to run down his throat.  His
throat was held so he could not prevent swallowing
the water, so that he had to allow the water to run
into his stomach.  He was directly under the faucet, with his mouth held wide open.  When be was
filled with water it was forced out of him by pressing a foot on his stomach or else with the bands;
and this continued from five to fifteen minutes.  A
native interpreter stood immediately over this man
as he lay on the floor and kept saying some word
which I should judge meant “confess” or “answer.”
[If the man did not provide all the information wanted, the process was repeated.  This time a syringe
was used to pump water from a five-gallon can.]
64
The syringe did not have the desired effect and the
doctor [Dr.  Palmer Lyons, an Army contract surgeon] ordered a second one.  The man got a second
syringe and that was inserted in his nose.  Then the
doctor ordered some salt and a handful of salt was
procured and thrown into the water.  Two syringes
were then in operation.  The interpreter stood over
him in the meantime asking for this second information that was desired.  Finally, he gave in and
gave the information they sought, and then be was
allowed to rise.
d) Reconcentration, genocide and terror on the populace
of Laguna and Batangas
After Aguinaldo’s capture, General Bell was given jurisdiction
of Laguna and Batangas to take out General Malvar and his
6,000 army.
To accomplish this task, Bell replicated the reconcentration
tactics used by Spanish “Butcher” Gen. Valeriano Wyler in
Cuba in the same scale and depth. (Wyler’s crimes against
humanity were the very cause of US public uproar that provided the political basis for the Spanish-American War.)
Bell relocated the entire population of Laguna and Batangas,
numbering 300,000, into concentration camps without tak-
The American Legacy
Historian Arnaldo Dumindin quotes an incident in the death
camps: 17
Female prisoners, Batangas, ca. 1899. Note the young girl and the elderly woman.
(c) Public domain
ing into account the provisions needed to feed them. He assigned garrison troops to guard and punish the populace for
the slightest infraction. This freed a large portion of his troops
for employment in field operations. His troops methodically
devastated the countryside section by section until no hut or
structure stood, all fields had been burned, wells poisoned,
and every nook and cranny scouted.
The result: 100,000 in the concentration camps perished.
General Malvar, to stop further harm on the people penned
in hamlets, surrendered.
Reverend W. H. Walker received a letter from his
son and showed it to the Boston Journal, which
reported about it on May 5, 1902. The letter described how 1,300 prisoners were executed over
a few weeks. A Filipino priest heard their confessions for several days and then he was  hanged
in front of them. Twenty prisoners at a time were
made to dig their mass graves and then were shot.
The young Walker wrote, “To keep them prisoners would necessitate the placing of the soldiers
on short rations, if not starving them. There was
nothing to do but kill them.”
In his defense, Bell declared that Filipinos had broken General
Order No. 100 (The Lieber Code) “by wearing civilian clothes
with no special markings and returning home between battles”
and “divesting themselves of the character and appearance of
soldiers...concealing their arms...posing as peaceful citizens....
rudely constructed infernal machines propelling poisoned arrows or darts…destruction of telegraph wires and bridges.”
Summing up, he said, “it is an inevitable consequence of war
that the innocent must generally suffer with the guilty” and
65
that “a short and severe war creates in the aggregate less loss
and suffering than a benevolent war indefinitely prolonged.”
Bell was acquitted for the death of 100,000 civilians he had
penned in the concentration camps.
e) Massacre in Malabon (March 25, 1899)
Anthony Michea of the Third Artillery wrote:
We bombarded a place called Malabon, and then
we went in and killed every native we met, men,
women, and children. It was a dreadful sight, the
killing of the poor creatures. The natives captured
some of the Americans and literally hacked them
to pieces, so we got orders to spare no one.
f) Genocide in the Island of Panay
The New York World issue of April 18, 1902, quoting Richard
Thomas O’Brien, who was a corporal in Company M, 26th U.S.
Volunteer Infantry Regiment,  based in Miag-ao, Iloilo Province, Panay Island, reported:
It was on the 27th day of December, the anniversary of my birth, and I shall never forget the scenes I
witnessed on that day. As we approached the town
66
Trembling before the white devils: Female civilians being interrogated by American
(c) Public domain
soldiers.
the word passed along the line that there would
be no prisoners taken. It meant that we were to
shoot every living thing in sight—man, woman,
and child. The first shot was fired by the then first
sergeant of our company. His target was a mere
boy, who was coming down the mountain path
into the town astride of a caribou [sic]. The boy
was not struck by the bullet, but that was not the
sergeant’s fault. The little Filipino boy slid from the
back of his caribou [sic] and fled in terror up the
mountain side. Half a dozen shots were fired after
The American Legacy
him. The shooting now had attracted the villagers,
who came out of their homes in alarm, wondering what it all meant. They offered no offense, did
not display a weapon, made no hostile movement
whatsoever, but they were ruthlessly shot down in
cold blood—men, women, and children. The poor
natives huddled together or fled in terror. Many
were pursued and killed on the spot.
Two old men, bearing between them a white flag
and clasping hands like two brothers, approached
the lines. Their hair was white. They fairly tottered,
they were so feeble under the weight of years. To
my horror and that of the other men in the command, the order was given to fire, and the two old
men were shot down in their tracks. We entered
the village. A man who had been on a sick-bed appeared at the doorway of his home. He received a
bullet in the abdomen and fell dead in the doorway. Dum-dum bullets were used in that massacre,
but we were not told the name of the bullets. We
didn’t have to be told. We knew what they were.
In another part of the village a mother with a babe
at her breast and two young children at her side
pleaded for mercy. She feared to leave her home,
which had just been fired—accidentally, I believe.
She faced the flames with her children, and not a
hand was raised to save her or the little ones. They
perished miserably. It was sure death if she left
the house—it was sure death if she remained. She
feared the American soldiers, however, worse than
the devouring flames.
Company M was under the command of Capt. Fred McDonald.
g) Genocide in the Island of Samar
General Jacob “Howling Jake” Smith became the public symbol
of barbarism in the Philippines. While still a Colonel he openly
bragged to foreign reporters in the Philippines that Filipino soldiers were “worse than fighting Indians” and that he had devised tactics appropriate to “savages”. This resulted in a series of
articles in major dailies that included ‘Death for Luzon Bandits’;
‘Guerrillas Caught by Col. Smith Will Be Shot or Hanged;’ ‘Campaign Worst than Fighting Indians.’ 18
Smith was found guilty in a court martial for ordering his men
to “kill everyone over the age of ten” and to turn Samar into “a
howling wilderness”19. Smith’s conviction came only because the
others accused in the massacres under his command produced
67
the orders he had written. (Other officers, it must be noted, like
General MacArthur, gave out their orders verbally.)
Smith, confident that this was only a harmless proceeding,
admitted through his counsel that he did give the order to
Waller and told the court that children over 10 were as dangerous as their elders.20 Despite the public outrage in the US
mainland, he was just quietly retired.
h) Genocide in Taytay, Rizal
On March 20, 1899, A.A. Barnes of Battery G, 3rd Artillery,
wrote to his brother that they had razed the town of Taytay
the night before to avenge the murder of  an American soldier: “Last night one of our boys was found shot and his stomach cut open. Immediately orders were received from General [Loyd] Wheaton to burn the town and kill every native
in sight, which was done...About one thousand men, women
and children were reported killed. I am probably growing
hard-hearted for I am in my glory when I can sight my gun on
some dark skin and pull the trigger.”21
Feisty grandmother: An old woman being treated in a Manila hospital by American doctors.
She was shot through the leg while allegedly carrying ammunition to Filipino soldiers (ca.
1899).
Source: Public domain
68
Major General Loyd Wheaton ordered the burning of the
municipality of Taytay, Rizal and the killing of its inhabitants.
He became the superior of General Funston in the Northern
Luzon campaign. Both were recipients of medals during their
The American Legacy
assignment in the Philippines.
i) Bombarding, burning and looting of cities and towns
The coastlines were pounded continuously by Admiral George
Dewey’s naval guns. An English resident commented about
Dewey’s role: “This is not war; it is simple massacre and murderous butchery. How can these men resist your ships?”  “The
Filipinos have swollen heads,” was Dewey’s reply. “They only
need one licking and they will go crying to their homes, or
we shall drive them into the sea, within the next three days.”
Capt. Albert Otis describes his exploits at Santa Ana in a letter
home:    
I have six horses and three carriages in my yard,
and enough small plunder for a family of six. The
house I had at Santa Ana had five pianos. I couldn’t
take them, so I put a big grand piano out of a second-story window. You can guess its finish. Everything is pretty quiet about here now. I expect we
will not be kept here very long now. Give my love
to all.
Pvt. Edward D. Furnam of the 1st Washington Volunteers, on the battles of February 4th and 5th:
We burned hundreds of houses and looted hundreds more. Some of the boys made good hauls
of jewelry and clothing. Nearly every man has at
least two suits of clothing, and our quarters are
furnished in style; fine beds with silken drapery,
mirrors, chairs, rockers, cushions, pianos, hanginglamps, rugs, pictures, etc. We have horses and carriages, and bull-carts galore, and enough furniture
and other plunder to load a steamer.
D. US policies during the
Commonwealth Period
1.
How did the US deal with the
agrarian question in the Philippines?
The land question made and kept the Filipino people backward during the Spanish period. The Spanish Crown confiscated the lands owned by non-Christians and apportioned
shares to conquistadores, Spanish religious orders, civil servants, private corporations, and the main datu quislings who
gave invaluable service (i.e., the principalia). The best agricultural lands were owned by the friars which they utilized using
the slave encomienda system and later transformed into haciendas. This impoverished the people and created agrarian
69
unrest, the chief social cause of the Philippine Revolution of
1896.
When the US took control of the Philippines, it sent Howard
Taft to Vatican where the US government bought all the friar
lands from the Vatican Pope. Most of these lands were then
sold to hacienderos (plantation owners) instead of being distributed to their former tenants whose ancestors were the
original owners.
A hacienda economy was encouraged. Commonwealth Act
No. 141 of 1939 or The Public Land Act confiscated all lands
owned, sold or assigned by the Muslim Sultans and Datus
of Mindanao and the ancestral lands of Indigenous Peoples.
Only titles that emanated from the former Spanish Crown
were recognized.
The virgin lands in Mindanao were opened to agricultural
corporations and would-be landlords and settlers from Luzon and Visayas. Because of the tedious paper work requirements in obtaining land patents, land acquisition favored the
educated and the rich.
These acts were done deliberately to make the Philippines a
backward nation, so the Philippines would not be self reliant
and be a competitor of the United States in the production
70
of commodities. They were motivated to produce a nation
of poor tenants instead of creating the conditions that would
bring about industrialization through agrarian land reform
(redistribution of land and the provision of financial and technical support to farmers).
The Malolos Congress of the Philippine Republic had decreed
the confiscation of all friar lands, to be subdivided at a later
date among the former tenants. Agrarian reform would have
increased the income of farmers, enabling them to send their
children to school and engage in entrepreneurial activities,
a natural development which would have led to national industrialization. This however was cut short by the PhilippineAmerican War.
The effect of these Commonwealth laws and policies can
be best illustrated in the provinces of Central and Southern
Luzon, the traditional center of peasant unrest in Luzon. In
1939, the percentage of cultivated and farmed lands by tenants were as follows: Pampanga, 67%; Bulacan, 66.5%; Nueva
Ecija, 67.8%; Cavite, 58.5%; Tarlac, 52.4%; Bataan , 46.7%;
Batangas, 47.8%; Laguna, 44.5%; Rizal, 39.01%; Quezon,
45.7%; Pangasinan, 33.8%; and Nueva Vizcaya, 25.5%.22 Overall, the national average of tenants in the Philippines hovered
between 50 to 60 percent up to the 1960s.
The American Legacy
The unresolved land question created agrarian unrest, revolts, insurgencies, and the continuing political and social
problem in Mindanao.
2.
How did the Philippine military
evolve under the colonial rule of the
United States?
a) The organization of the Macabebe Scouts
The US occupation forces were quick to employ the only Filipino armed contingent to remain loyal to the Spanish forces
up to the end.
The Spanish 72nd Macabebe Regiment was organized by a
Spanish haciendero, Col. Eugenio Blanco, who had a farm in
Macabebe during the 1896 Revolution. In the Spanish Order
of Battle compiled by James Nelson, Regiment No. 72 (the
Macabebe Regiment) was assigned to the Visayas with one
battalion and headquartered in Manila but was temporarily
deployed at that time (1897) in Mindanao.23
Memorial to villainy: The Macabebes were used as mercenaries by the Spaniards and later
by the Americans.
The remnants of the Macabebe Regiment remained loyal to
the Spanish forces up to the end, even when most Filipino
soldiers under the Spanish Army had defected to the revolutionary forces. They were immediately employed by the
71
US Army to help them fight the soldiers of the Philippine Republic. They acted as scouts and guides under General Lawton. The United States Army had confidence and experience
in utilizing local mercenaries to fight their own countrymen.
They had organized Indian units (Apache Scouts and Navajo
Scouts) during their Indian Campaigns.
Department” was set up under the United States Army to
take charge of these Filipino units, designated as “Philippine
Scouts” with the PS suffix placed after their company or regiment number to distinguish them from other US formations.
They however remained under the command of US regular
officers.25
As the battle raged in Calumpit, more than a hundred Macabebes in their Sunday clothes shamelessly marched towards
the American lines and volunteered their combat services.
These units were employed against Filipino revolutionaries
and the Moro fighters of Mindanao. Soldiers and units of
the PS were increased after 1902 when the United States
officially declared the end of the Philippine-American War.
Units of the PS were designated as the 43rd, 45th, and 57th
Infantry Regiments; the 24th and 25th Field Artillery Regiments, the 26th Cavalry Regiment; and the 91st and 92nd
Coast Artillery Regiments and other support units. Eventually they were grouped under a Division, the “Philippine
Division”. Filipino officers were commissioned gradually
starting in 1910. One Filipino cadet was sent to the US Military Academy a year for Officers Training.
Impressed by their loyalty and potential, General Otis, commander of all US ground forces in the Philippines, approved
their maximum utilization. An initial company was organized
under Lt. Matthew A. Batson. Eventually, five companies totaling 640 men (128 men per company) were formed and
placed under Batson and employed in October 1899 to pursue Aguinaldo’s forces. They became known as the Macabebe Scouts. They were reorganized into the Philippine Cavalry Squadron,24 an irregular unit under the US Army.
c) The Philippine Constabulary (1901-1935)
b) The Philippine Scouts (1901-1945)
By October 1901, that United States Army decided to regularize Filipino armed units they were employing to replace and
become the main army units in the Philippines. A “Philippine
72
The United States Army, simultaneous with the organization
of the Philippine Scouts, organized the Philippine Constabulary (PC) on August 8, 1901, while the Philippine-American
War was raging all over Luzon and the Visayas.
The American Legacy
Philippine Scouts: organized by the US Army to fight against their fellow Filipinos during the Philippine-American War, they were later deployed to Mindanao to help quell the Moro uprising.
73
It was created by the United States Philippine Commission by authority of the US President through Act. No. 175
(An Act providing for the organization and government of
an Insular Constabulary and for the inspection of the municipal police) and amended by Act No. 225 to change its
name to Philippine Constabulary and adding a Section for
Information.
It was placed under the general supervision of the Civil Governor “for the purpose of better maintaining peace, law, and
order in the various provinces of the Philippine Islands, organized, officered and governed as hereinafter set forth, which
shall be known as the Philippine Constabulary .”
A Corps of Inspectors was organized to oversee and supervise
the various municipal police forces.
The Philippine Constabulary was immediately utilized to fight
in the Philippine-American War.
A PC school was established on February 17, 1905 at the
Sta. Lucia barracks at the Walled City of Intramuros. It was
transferred to Baguio in 1908, renamed as the Academy for
Officers of the Philippine Constabulary in 1916, and in 1926
became the Philippine Constabulary Academy. In the 1935
reorganization, it would be transformed into the Philippine
74
Military Academy, a school producing officers for the Philippine Constabulary and the Philippine Scouts.
3.
What were the major field operations
of the Philippine Scouts and
Philippine Constabulary from 1901 to
1940?
The major field operations conducted by the Philippine
Scouts and the Philippine Constabulary between 1901 to
1940 would show that they were not the protectors of the
Filipino people.
• Operations in the Samar-Leyte Area of the US Army and
the Visayas Philippine Scouts: The hunt for soldiers of the
Philippine Republic under Gen. Vicente Lukban and Gen.
Claro Guevarra (1901 to 1902)
• Operations in the Bulacan-Rizal Provinces: The hunt for
soldiers of the Philippine Republic under Gen.l Luciano
San Miguel (1902-1903)26
• Operations in the Batangas-Laguna Provinces: The hunt
for 6,000 soldiers of the Philippine Republic under Gen.
Miguel Malvar.
• Operations in the Bulacan-Rizal Provinces: The hunt for
soldiers of the Philippine Republic under Col. Faustino
The American Legacy
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Guillermo (1901)27
Operations in the Morong, Laguna, Cavite, and Tayabas
(now Quezon) Provinces: The hunt for soldiers of the Philippine Republic under Macario Sakay (1901-1907)
Operations in the Bicol Region: The hunt for soldiers of
the Philippine Republic under Gen. Simeon A. Ola (19011903)28
The hunt for Gen. Artemio Ricarte (1903-1904)
Operations in Samar after the Capture of General Lukban:
The hunt for the Pulajanes (1902-1906)
Suppression of the strikes and peasant unrests led by Socialist Pedro Abad Santos (former Major of the Philippine
Republic) in Central Luzon (1920s to 1940s)
Suppression of the peasant Sakdal uprising in fourteen
towns in Rizal, Bulacan, Laguna and Cavite (1935)
The Moro Wars in Mindanao (1901-1916)
4.
Did the Philippine military fight
foreign wars for the U.S.?
Nearly. In 1917 the National Army, was created by the US War
Department to fight in World War I. It provided for the regular US Army as its core with an authorized strength of 286,000
and a National Guard of 450,000. The National Army was to
be created in two increments of 500,000 each, the timetable
to be determined by the President.
In line with the creation of the National Army, the Philippine
Assembly formed the 25,000 Philippine National Guard to
serve under General John Pershing in Europe. They were sent
to Batangas in preparation for shipment to Europe. But the
armistice overtook further developments; they were never
deployed and the Guard was eventually dissolved.
5.
What were the laws that made
human rights violations systemic
to the Philippine military under the US
Commonwealth?
a) Defending the haciendero economy
Under the US colonial government, the land problem remained the foundation of social unrest. Originating from the
unjust confiscation of all the lands owned by the inhabitants
by the Spanish conquistadores (except those possessed by
quisling chieftains), during their conquest in the 16th century,
the problem remained unaddressed.
The US was aware of the land problem in the Philippines. But
it encouraged the growth of tenancy in the Philippines because of its policy of underdevelopment to prevent the country from becoming an industrialized competitor.
75
The Philippine Constabulary and the Philippine Scouts were
used to quell peasant uprisings arising from this policy.
location of rural populations in overcrowded villages for the
purpose of isolating guerrillas fighting the government.
The national average of tenancy in the Philippines increased
from 54 percent in 1903 to 60 percent in 1948.
On August 23, 1907, another repressive law was enacted. It
was known as Act No. 1696 or the Flag Law, which banned
the public display of flags, banners, emblems, or devices that
were used during the Philippine-American War, including the
flags, banners, emblems and symbols of the Katipunan (KKK).
b) The Sedition Law, Brigandage Act, Reconcentration
Act and the Flag Law
Patriotism and the aspirations for nationhood became a terrible crime. Howard Taft, head of the Philippine Commission,
issued a very unpopular law in the same year (November
4, 1901), the Sedition Law or Act No. 292. It prohibited any
Filipino from advocating independence or separation from
the United States. It declared unlawful any peaceful or overt
means such as speech, printing, publication and circulation
of any material that encourages the Filipinos to fight against
American rule. This resulted in the imposition of the death
penalty or long imprisonment to many nationalist leaders.
Another law, the Brigandage Act (Act No. 518), criminalized
rebellion by equating it with banditry. Any three persons or
more caught armed with bolos roaming the highway or the
country were subject to the Brigandage Act. This effectively
classified all acts of rebellion as plain banditry.
In 1903, the Reconcentration Act took effect, allowing the re76
Plays such as Hindi Aco Patay written by Juan Matapang Cruz,
Tanikalang Guinto by Juan Abad, and Kahapon, Ngayon at Bukas
by Aurelio Tolentino were considered seditious, and their authors, actors and spectators were arrested and imprisoned.
6.
What was the 1935 military
reorganization of the Philippine
Commonwealth?
Based on the advise of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the 1935
National Defense Act was passed into law by the commonwealth government of President Quezon in preparation for
the granting of Philippine Independence. It called for the creation of a Commonwealth Army under a defense program
that Quezon said “must be carried out economically” with a
“passively defensive” orientation.28
The American Legacy
This reorganization did not push through because of the
threat of a Japanese invasion, and the US had to make preparations against such threat.
ated an oil embargo until Japan retreated from China. Considering that 80 percent of Japan’s oil requirements came from
the US, this placed Japan on the brink of war.
E. World War II
By November of 1941, Pacific and Asiatic commanders had
already been told that the prospects of an agreement with
Japan was slight and soon after, the US War Department gave
them a final alert.29
1.
What was the cause of the war in the
Asia Pacific?
Japan invaded China in 1937 and seized Beijing and Shanghai and
carried out a war to seize all of China. In July of 1941, it invaded
French Indo-China, capitalizing on Hitler’s victory over France in
1940, to open a new strategic front to take out China.
President Roosevelt froze all Japanese assets in the US on July
26, 1941. Britain and the Dutch East Indies also confiscated
Japanese assets.
On July 26, 1941, the U.S. organized the United States Armed
Forces in the Far East (USAFFE), tasked with the rapid build up
of US forces in the Philippines in preparation for an anticipated war with Japan. MacArthur was reactivated and promoted
to Lt. General and made the head this new command.
By August, US, Britain and the Netherlands East Indies initi-
2.
Was the USAFFE adequately prepared
to face the Japanese threat?
MacArthur was confident with the US defense and offensive preparations they had set up in the Philippines. Under
his command was an infantry totaling 150,000, consisting of
30,000 regulars (one-third of regulars being Filipinos in the
Philippine Scout and PC units) with tank and artillery support
and 120,000 Filipino mobilized reserves. In addition, he had
an air force that had the 86 bombers (35 of them state-ofthe-art B-17 Flying Fortress bombers) and about 191 fighter planes which were stronger than Hawaii’s air capability.
He could also rely on the Asiatic Fleet that had a flotilla of
ships and a core of 36 new submarines. Though he did not
command the Asiatic Fleet, it was based in the naval yard of
Cavite (Sangley Point).30
77
The Bataan Death March, 1942
The US army had also carried out massive construction of military defenses, and naval and air bases up to the mid 1930s.
These included naval defenses in Manila Bay, Fort Mills in
Corregidor, Grande Islands in Subic Bay, and Sangley Point in
Cavite, the home base of the US Asiatic Fleet. They built air
bases that included the Nichols Air Station (now Villamor Air
Base), Nielson Air Base (whose landing strips are now Ayala
and Buendia Ave.), Fort Stotsenburg (which became Clark
Air Base), and air fields in Tuguegarao, Aparri, Isabela, Nueva
78
Ecija, Legaspi, Bataan and Del Monte in Davao. They also built
a string of military army camps in Fort McKinley (which became Fort Bonifacio), Camp Murphy (now Camps Aguinaldo
and Crame), Camp O’Donnell in Tarlac, Camp Wallace in La
Union, Camp Keitley in Lanao, Camp Eldridge in Los Banos,
Laguna, and Camp Henry T. Allen in Baguio City.
There was also the presence of allied naval forces in Southeast Asia that they could coordinate with if attacked by Japan.
The American Legacy
3.
What were the major errors of Gen.
Douglas MacArthur that caused
much suffering to the Filipino people?
MacArthur committed major errors that bordered on criminal negligence and incompetence that caused great harm to
the general interest of Filipinos. These were:
a) Negligence resulting in the destruction of the
USAFFE’s capability to crush Japan’s ability to take
Southeast Asia in the first 24 hours of the war in the Philippines
MacArthur had been forewarned by higher headquarters that
war was imminent after the US imposed an oil embargo on
Japan. He did not devise an automatic retaliatory response
based on possible scenarios that could emerge as was standard command military procedure. In military procedures,
these automatic acts based on corresponding scenarios are
called OPLANS (Operational Plans). Macarthur failed to put
Oplans in place.
In addition, USAFFE’s infantry and air force and the Asiatic
Fleet combined were militarily superior in air, naval and army
in terms of manpower, weapons, and logistics than the Japanese expeditionary forces when the war started.
The Japanese bombers in Formosa were unable to take off
and bomb US airfields in the Philippines, providing 8 valuable
hours for MacArthur between the attack on Hawaii and the
attack on the Philippines. He failed to seize the strategic initiative to effectively stop the Japanese forces.
On that fateful day of December 9, 1941, MacArthur was
technically AWOL. He was nowhere to be found, not even
in his luxurious penthouse in Manila Hotel, to command the
USAFFE. His Chief of Staff, General Sutherland, did not assume command of the situation in the wake of MacArthur’s
unexplained absence.
When Pearl Harbor was bombed, the commander of the US
air force in Clark Air Base pressed for the immediate bombing
of the Japanese air field in Formosa as a counter attack. Formosa was the only Japanese airbase that could enable Japanese bombers to reach and bomb the Philippines. The US air
force commander frantically asked Sutherland three times to
bombard Formosa but Sutherland denied his request, saying
that it was first necessary to make an aerial photo reconnaissance before he could consider making such an order.
Within that day, most of the US bombers and fighter planes in
the Philippines had become useless debris. They were caught
neatly parked in runways in a Japanese turkey shoot.
79
Without air cover, the US Asiatic Fleet was ordered by Washington to abandon the Philippines and take refuge in Australia
where it became a white elephant without any infrastructure
and supplies to carry out any further offensive actions.
MacArthur’s incredible conduct changed the entire air and
naval situation in the whole Asia-Pacific in favor of Japan
within 24 hours of the war. Yet he was not relieved of his post
and was instead allowed to continue being the commander
of USAFFE.
b) MacArthur issued a series of irrational commands
that led to the total destruction of the USAFFE in Luzon
leading to the final surrender in Bataan and Corregidor
After MacArthur lost his air force by default within 8 hours
after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, he still had an infantry force that could crush a Japanese invasion. Even while
most of his troops were untested in battle, they were three
times bigger than the Japanese that would land in the Philippines. He had a total of 150,000 troops with tank and artillery
support, some state-of-the-art submarines, bombers (B-14s
in Laoag) and fighter planes that survived. About 120,000
of his troops were in Luzon, with a core of 8 Divisions (the
Northern Luzon Force under General Wainwright with 4 Divisions and 1 Cavalry Regiment; the South Luzon Force under
80
General Parker with 2 Divisions; and a strategic reserve of 2
Divisions in the vicinity of Clark Air Base).
3 more divisions were deployed for the Visayas and Mindanao area under General Sharp.
Homma landed his main force of 2 Divisions (including the
pride of his army, the 48th Division) totaling 43,110 men32 in
Lingayen Coast and a secondary landing at Lamon Bay with
a total of 7,000 troops. All in all, he had a force of 50,110 in
Luzon, with 80-100 tanks and artillery of not more than 60
artillery pieces. About a third of his infantry had bicycles.
While MacArthur was quite familiar with the coastal terrain
of Luzon, having studied its coastal defense from which he
based the 1935 Defense Act, he did not prepare for its defense. The defense of both Lingayen and Lamon Bay were improvisations when the Japanese forces were already en route
for landing. As a result, the improvised defenses without the
benefit of entrenched artillery, pill boxes and running trenches easily collapsed.
As MacArthur received news of the successful landings in Lingayen and Lamon Bay, he panicked.
War Plan Orange Three (WPO3) was a contingency plan that
The American Legacy
MacArthur had severely criticized at West Point in the 1930s
as “faulty”. It was premised on a scenario of Japanese invasion on the Philippines. It called for a strategic retreat to
Bataan where they could hold out for a period of six months
until the US Pacific Fleet and the Asiatic Fleet were able to organize a counter-offensive, pushing the Japanese forces back
all the way to Japan until their defeat.
For some unexplained reason, MacArthur activated WPO3,
ordering all his forces in Luzon to make a strategic retreat to
Bataan and setting up a series of delaying defensive lines to
cover the retreat. The hasty activation of WPO3 made the
Northern and Southern Luzon Commands abandon many of
their tanks and artillery and logistics as they rushed to reach
Bataan before it could be encircled by the Japanese force.
MacArthur was aware that WPO3 was not viable because all
assumptions for the contingency plan did not exist anymore.
The US was in no position to mount a full-scale counter-offensive in six months. The US naval fleet and its strategic air
bases in Hawaii had been lost. The strategic bombers in Clark
Air Base and Iba Air Base had mostly been destroyed. There
was now only the Asiatic Fleet that had lost its naval capability when it abandoned the naval base in Cavite on December
9, 1941 and beat a hasty retreat to Australia. There was also
a war in Europe, which activated War Plan Rainbow 5 (R-5),
that in an event of a simultaneous war in Europe especially
if it involved Britain against Germany, the Europe First Policy
would be applied. This meant that the US would concentrate
on winning the war first in Europe before shifting to the AsiaPacific area. There was also the fact that the South China Sea
was now controlled by Japan by air and by sea, cutting off
logistics for Bataan and by simply putting a tight cordon, his
men would starve to surrender.
MacArthur’s defensive lines crumbled one after the other
until the 14th Imperial Japanese Army reached the vicinity of
Bataan.
Homma had his own problems. The Japanese Southern Army
Group pulled out Homma’s best and tested unit, the 48th Division, and replaced it with the neophyte 4th Division in January 1942 just when Homma was readying a final push to take
Bataan.
It was at this juncture that Homma experienced a battle of
attrition, exacting a high toll on human lives for both sides.
So intense was the fighting that at one point a lull in fighting
occurred. At this critical juncture, Homma’s offensive had lost
steam, with only three Japanese battalions remaining in battle
condition while the rest of his troops were sick or wounded,
against the encircled, demoralized USAFFE’s 75,000 troops.
81
But General Wainwright and his staff had lost their fighting
spirit and failed to figure out that they were surrounded by a
very much smaller – though determined – force that was now
extremely weak. At that moment he could have destroyed
Homma’s entire force in a major counter-attack.
Homma’s forces were finally reinforced, bringing them back
to their former strength, upon the direct intercession of the
Japanese Emperor. Bataan fell when Homma resumed the offensive.
Homma was dumbfounded when the USAFFE surrendered
with 75,000 troops on April 9, 1942. All along he had been
thinking there were at most 25,000 manning Bataan.33 Homma shifted his attention to Corregidor, which eventually surrendered with 13,000 USAFFE troops. All in all, 88,000 USAFFE
prisoners were taken in Bataan and Corregidor. MacArthur,
with a small party, escaped using PT boats.
Had MacArthur just let his three tactical commands (North,
South, and Visayas-Mindanao) carry out guerrilla warfare
using regular troops (i.e., trading space for advantage and
refusing decisive battles), the 14th Japanese Army with only
three Divisions would have been overstretched and logistically drained to accomplish anything.
82
Based on MacArthur’s unpublished manuscript (which he did
not have published in his lifetime, possibly because of his embarrassing faulty leadership), Japan’s intent in the Philippines
was primarily to control the air and naval bases. They were
recognized as strategic to protect Japan’s hold on Southeast
Asia and not for economic reasons, unlike in China and the
rest of Southeast Asia.
The poor leadership of MacArthur and his flight to Australia
had cost the Filipino people and the USAFFE a tremendous
toll in lives, destruction of property and much humiliation
and suffering. MacArthur was not reprimanded nor retired;
instead, he was given the highest military medal of the US,
the Medal of Honor, and assigned to lead all allied forces.
He was also given the absolute authority to reorganize the
Philippine commonwealth and the army prior to the granting
of independence.
Long after MacArthur’s death, a journalist exposed a scandal that tarnished the General’s reputation. On January
1, 1942, President Quezon, afraid that the United States
would abandon the Philippines, apparently issued bribes
in the form of Commonwealth-issued checks to ranking
US Commanders in the Philippines so that they will give
The American Legacy
the Philippines preferential treatment in their war plans.
He gave MacArthur $500,000.00, General Sutherland
$75,000.00, Richard Marshall $45,000.00 and MacArthur’s
personal aide $20,000.00.34; 35 General Eisenhower was
also offered money by President Quezon when he became
Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force,
but the former declined the bribe.
F. Post-War Philippines
1.
How did MacArthur rebuild the
Philippine government and its armed
forces?
Prior to the ‘granting’ of independence, MacArthur was made
to reorganize the Commonwealth government and rebuild
the Philippine Army. He made many decisions that would define the post-war era and the character of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines.
While the general trend in the liberation of Europe and Asia
was to remove and punish those who collaborated with the
enemy and replace them with patriots with proven integrity,
honor and qualifications, MacArthur did the opposite.
• In Central Luzon, a patriotic resistance movement had
developed, and a de facto agrarian reform put in place.
It had an underground government that had mass popular support. Most landlords and politicians in this region
collaborated with the Japanese and had been driven out
by their tenants who became guerrillas of the Hukbo ng
Bayan Laban sa Hapon (Hukbalahap). This was the only
resistance army that did not follow MacArthur’s orders to
lie low, and became a potent force to reckon with in the
post war period. During the war, they had the full support
of tenants in the region who cultivated as free farmers
the lands abandoned by landlords.
They were a threat to US interests and MacArthur had
long decided that they should not have any part in the
new Commonwealth government. Hukbalahap squadrons (companies) had welcomed the coming of American troops and had participated in the mopping up operations against Japanese forces, including the so-called
Great Raid in Nueva Ecija and the battle for Clark Airbase
and had been entrusted in clearing up Basa Air Base and
in the Battle of Manila. When the mopping up operations
had ended, the Hukbalahap were systematically disarmed
and their leaders arrested. However, a big demonstration
participated in by numerous American soldiers who felt
the arrest of the leaders of their guerrilla comrades in the
83
mopping operations was unjust, forced MacArthur to release the leaders of the Hukbalahap.
• In a bid to clear up Central Luzon of resistance insurgents,
MacArthur appointed many notorious Japanese collaborators as Officer in Charge (OICs) of local governments
and allowed landlords to use private armies recruited
from former local Japanese collaborators to retake their
lands with the support of the Military Police.
• Most national politicians who were left behind in the
Philippines during the war became Japanese collaborators. MacArthur released the 5,000 top Japanese collaborators headed by Manuel Roxas that the US Army
had arrested for collaboration and allowed them to
influence and dominate Philippine politics. He hand
picked Manuel Roxas to head the Philippine Commonwealth Congress when it was reconvened. This way,
they would be beholden to him and always fear being
charged with collaboration if they did not approve the
policy directions the US directed.
84
MacArthur reactivated all these politicians, producing
a spineless, unprincipled and opportunistic tradition
(balimbing) in the conduct of Philippine politics.
• This same policy was applied in building the armed forces.
A significant number of Filipino USAFFE members that were
captured and released by Japanese amnesty proclamation
had joined the dreaded Japanese Bureau of Constabulary
or collaborated and involved themselves in cruelties against
guerrillas and the population. Japan also recruited additional Filipinos to the Japanese Philippine Constabulary and
its paramilitary units. MacArthur inserted about 50,000 of
these Japanese collaborators into the Philippine army, but a
mammoth indignation rally forced him to remove them.
As a result, the Armed Forces of the Philippines went down
to 25,000. It was the remains of the Philippine military that
had numbered 132,000 before the war.36 MacArthur formed
them into thirteen military police companies, armed as police, to maintain internal peace and order.37 They became the
core of the contemporary AFP.
MacArthur abetted graft and corruption within the military organization that included the disappearance of 6,000
brand new army jeeps, and a significant number of weapons carriers, bull dozers, gasoline, spare parts and military
equipment stored in military warehouses originally intended for the invasion of Japan. With the end of the war, they
were intended to be donated to the national government
for its reconstruction program. Most of the suspects that
were arrested would be cleared and those found guilty
would be given light sentences, indicating that the syndicate was run by very powerful men within the US military
establishment.
2.
Why did the Bell Trade Act remove
the basic essence of Philippine
Independence?
Two days before the US grant of Philippine independence,
the Bell Trade Act was enacted by the US Congress. The Act
effectively maintained US control over the Philippine economy and discouraged it from embarking on national industrialization. Its unequal provisions were the following:
• The Philippine currency was pegged at two pesos per
US dollar, discouraging Philippine exports from Filipinoowned factories to the US.
• The Philippines would not have control of its imports and
exports and give preferential tariffs to US goods. New
Filipino manufacturing industries were not allowed to be
protected from US competition through tariffs.
• No restrictions for currency transfers from the Philippines
to the U.S.
Filipino guerrillas during World War II
• A “parity” clause gave US citizens and corporations equal
access to Philippine minerals, forests and other natural
resources, despite provisions in the Philippine constitution (1935) to the contrary, and which the act required to
be amended.
Even President Sergio Osmena objected to the Bell Trade Act,
calling it a “curtailment of Philippine sovereignty.” But the Act
still became a law even when its parity clause violated the
1935 Philippine Constitution.
85
3.
What other events charted the
course of the Philippines prior to the
grant of its independence?
Manuel Roxas was elected as the last president of the Philippine Commonwealth in the general elections of 1946. The circumstances of his political rehabilitation to politics dictated
his complete agreement with US demands and interests.
The US was able to get a lease for 23 US military bases and
installations in the country and through the U.S.-R.P. Military
Assistance Pact maintain undue control and influence in the
AFP.
All these events would define the political, economic and
military direction of the Philippines in the decades to come.
86
through the internet.
notes
1
Moors, Britannica Encyclopedia (1911), p. 811
9
2
de Fabrique, Nathalie; Romano, Stephen J.; Vecchi, Gregory M.;
van Hasselt, Vincent B. (July 2007). “Understanding Stockholm Syndrome”. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (Law Enforcement Communication Unit) 76 (7): 10–15. ISSN 0014-5688. Retrieved 17 November
2010.
10
3
Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). “Fourth Lateran Council (1215)”.
Catholic Encyclopedia. Robert Appleton Company.
Beale is regarded as a mainstream US historian of the 19th and 20th
century and wrote several biographies among them Theodore Roosevelt.
As quoted by Vivencio Jose from Report of the Commission Appointed by the President to Investigate the Conduct of the War Department in War with Spain. (Washington: Gov’t Printing Office, 1900).
Vol. 2 (Appendices). P. 1299.
Dumindin, Arnaldo. Philippine-American War, 1899-1902. Website.
11
4
Colin Jones, Paris: Biography of a City (New York: Viking, 2004), 188,
189.
12
5
Denis Diderot as quoted in Lynn Hunt, R. Po-chia Hsia, Thomas R.
Martin, Barbara H. Rosenwein, and Bonnie G. Smith, The Making of
the West: Peoples and Cultures: A Concise History: Volume II: Since
1340, Second Edition (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007), 611.
13
John Locke (1632 – 28 October 1704), was a British Philosopher considered to be the Father of Liberalism.
6
See Locke’s Two Treatises of Government
Notes prepared by William P. Meyers with quotations taken from:
Beale, Howard K. Theodore Roosevelt and the Rise of America to
World Power . Collier Books, New York, NY, p. 77 (1962 paperback
edition). Copyright 1956 by The Johns Hopkins Press. Accessed
7
8
Linn, Brian McAllister. The Philippine War 1899-1902 (Lawrence: Univ.
of Kansas Press, 2000), p. 185.
Dumindin Arnaldo. Philippine-American War, 1899-1902. Website.
New York Sun, March 10, 1902; Benevolent Assimilation The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899-1903, Stuart Creighton Miller,
(Yale University Press, 1982), pp. 234-235
14
Waterboarding.org
15
Lieutenant Grover Flint during the Philippine-American War, quoted
in Benevolent Assimilation: The American Conquest of the Philippines,
Stuart Creighton Miller (1982)
16
Dumindin Arnaldo. Philippine-American War, 1899-1902. Website.
17
87
Miller, p. 95; Death For Luzon Bandits; Guerrillas Caught by Col. Smith
Will Be Shot or Hanged. Criminals Infest the Island Some American
Officers Say the Campaign Is Worse Than Fighting Indians. New York
Times, December 13, 15, 1899; San Francisco Call, August 28, 1899,
January 11, 1900; Boston Evening Transcript, January 12, 1900.
18
Miller, p. 220; PBS documentary “Crucible of Empire”; Philippine
NewsLink interview with Bob Couttie, author of “Hang the Dogs: The
True and Tragic History of the Balangiga Massacre”, available on the
Internet.
19
Houston Daily Post, April 1902
20
Soldier’s Letters, pamphlet (Anti-Imperialist League, 1899). Reprinted
in Philip S. Foner and Richard Winchester, The Anti-Imperialist Reader: A Documentary History of Anti-Imperialism in the United States,
Vol. 1 (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1984).
21
From Sturtevant’s “Philippine Social Structure and Its relation to
Agrarian Unrest” as quoted by Eduardo Lachica in Huk: Philippine
Agrarian Society in Revolt.
22
Louis Morton. The War in the Pacific: The Fall of the Philippines. Center of Military History. United States Army Washington, D.C. 1953. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 53-63678. Full Text Accessed
through the Internet
23
Ibid.
Ibid.
24
25
88
26
Ibid.
“Aboard the transports was the main strength of General Homma’s
14th Army, altogether 43,110 men.5 The major combat strength of
the Lingayen Force was drawn from Lt. Gen. Yuichi Tsuchibashi’s 48th
Division. Activated in Formosa in late 1940 and as yet untried in battle, this division was composed of the 1st and 2d Formosa Infantry
Regiments, the 47th Infantry, and artillery, reconnaissance, engineer,
and transport regiments. Attached to it for the landing was a large
number of combat and service units, but the 2d Formosa had been
lost by the establishment of the Tanaka and Kanno Detachments. Although probably the best motorized division in the Japanese Army
at this time, the 48th by American standards could hardly be said to
have sufficient motor transportation. One battalion of each infantry
regiment was equipped with bicycles. Divisional artillery consisted of
the 48th Mountain Artillery, similar to a standard field artillery regiment except that the basic weapon was the 75-mm. mountain gun
(pack).” from Louis Morton. The War in the Pacific: The Fall of the
Philippines. quoting Order of Battle of the Japanese Armed Forces,
WD G-2, 1 Mar 45, p. 108; USA vs. Homma, p. 3054-55, testimony
of Homma; Handbook of Japanese Military Forces, TM-E-30-480, 15
Sept ‘44, p. 37.
27
These revelations came out from both captured Japanese documents and Homma’s testimony that embarrassed Macarthur. He was
hanged despite the fact that he was disliked by the Japanese militarists and forced to retire in 1942 for his anti war sentiments. He no
more controlled the 14th IJA during the death march as he had been
operationally relieved with the militarists taking over and finishing
Corregidor a month later.
28
These payoffs are mentioned in : Rogers, Paul P. (1990). The Good
Years: MacArthur and Sutherland. New York: Praeger Publishers.
ISBN 0-275-92918-3. OCLC 20452987. and Petillo, Carol M. (February 1979). Douglas MacArthur and Manuel Quezon: A Note on an
Imperial Bond. Volume 48. University of California Press. 107–117.
JSTOR 3638940.
29
Historian Carol Petillo whose findings appeared in the Pacific Historical Review insists that the documentary evidence can be found on
the papers of Sutherland which are deposited at the National Archives in Washington. She further claims that Chase Manhattan Bank
had questioned the bank transaction but later released the amount
after the War Department wrote a letter that said the President and
the Secretary of War had been informed of the questionable transaction.
30
Donald MacGrain, Anti-Dissident Operations in the Philippines, (Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College, [26 March 1956) accessed
in the internet.
31
Napoleon D. Valeriano, Charles T. R. Bohan. Counter-Guerrilla Operations: The Philippine Experience.
32
89
90
Photo credit (back cover): Rapha-el Q. Olegario/PhilRights Photobank
91
92

1. - Philippine Human Rights Information Center

Transcription

Similar documents

Emilio Aguinaldo Letter - Portland Public Schools blog

Memorandum

Converging Texts: Teaching Culture throughTranslaVon and

Philippines 101 - House of the Philippines

pressrelease - New York, PCG

STEM Human Resources - British Council | Philippines

POST-WAR PHILIPPINE FICTION IN ENGLISH

10“More Fun” Things To Do In The Philippines

FiestaPoster2012

publicity - Rackcdn.com